sebi:EAD-9/SM/59/2018-19
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b)
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
Regulations
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 201
- Reg. 29(1)
Parties
- Sanjeev Burman Jhaveri
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulation 29(1) read with 29(3) of SAST 2011 and Regulation 13(1) of PIT 1992 by failing to disclose acquisition reaching 5.02% and a monetary penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 15A(b) was imposed treating the violations as a single violation.
Full text
In the matter of Super Domestic Machines Ltd Page 2 of 6 7. A company, in its reply dated September 14, 2016 has confirmed that it had received disclosures under SAST 2011 and PIT 1992 from certain entities during the investigation period which does not include Noticee
In the matter of Super Domestic Machines Ltd Page 3 of 6 II. Does the violation, if any, on the part of Noticee attract monetary penalty under Section 15A (b) of the Act?
In the matter of Super Domestic Machines Ltd Page 4 of 6 (b) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any adjudication, enquiry or investigation commenced or show-cause notice issued under the repealed regulations prior to such repeal, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of these regulations;
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/59/2018-19. 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.