sebi:EAD-9/SM/119/2018
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticee held guilty of disclosure violations and monetary penalty imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
Regulations
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 12
- Reg. 201
- Reg. 35
Parties
- Dhirenkumar Dharamadas Agrawal
Holding
Dhiren was held guilty of violating Regulations 7(1) read with 7(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 and Regulations 13(1) and 13(3) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations, 1992 for non-disclosure of shareholding in Parichay Investments Ltd and a monetary penalty of Rs.6,00,000 was imposed under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
In the matter of Parichay Investments Ltd against Dhirenkumar Dharamadas Agrawal Page 2 of 8 15-Apr-11 6.96 Change in shareholding by 2% or more 13(3) of PIT 1992 20-Apr-11 4.82 Change in shareholding by 2% or more 13(3) of PIT 1992 25-Apr-11 5.71 Crossing the threshold limit of 5% 7(1) of SAST 1997 and 13(1) of PIT 1992 27-May-11 3.28 Change in shareholding by 2% or more 13(3) of PIT1992
In the matter of Parichay Investments Ltd against Dhirenkumar Dharamadas Agrawal Page 3 of 8 Hearing: 8 In the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry in terms of Rule 4(3) of Rules, Dhiren was granted an opportunity of personal hearing before the undersigned on October 13, 2017. In response, Dhiren vide letter dated September 09, 2017 sought adjournment. 9 Another opportunity of personal hearing was granted on November 6 , 2017 to Dhiren. On the day of hearing Authorised Representative (“AR”) appeared before me on the basis of authorization of Dhiren and submitted the written submissions on the even date and also reiterated the same during hearing and undertook to make further submissions before November 24, 2017. 10 The submission made by AR vide letter dated November 6, 2017, inter-alia states that he require more time to arrange contract notes and submit the built-up of shareholding to answer the charge of violation of Trigger defaults as alleged in the SCN. 11 However, till the date of passing this Order Dhiren/AR had not made any additional
In the matter of Parichay Investments Ltd against Dhirenkumar Dharamadas Agrawal Page 4 of 8 Relevant provisions of SAST Regulations, 1997:
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:EAD-9/SM/119/2018. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.