sebi:EAD-9/VKV/NK/2020-21/9406

SEBI · SEBI · 2016-12-15 · Vijayant Kumar Verma, Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Violation of Regulation 29(1) read with 29(3) of SAST Regulations established; monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act

Provisions invoked

• s. 15A
• s. 15
• s. 15J
• s. 15I
• s. 15F
• s. 28A

Regulations

• Reg. 3
• Reg. 29(1)
• Reg. 29(2)
• Reg. 29(3)
• Reg. 3(1)
• Reg. 3(4)
• Reg. 201

Parties

• Ms. Kalavati Kanakia

Holding

Ms. Kalavati Kanakia violated Regulation 29(1) read with 29(3) of the SAST Regulations, 2011 by failing to timely disclose acquisition increasing shareholding from 0.16% to 5.32% in KBS India Ltd., and is liable to a monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.

Full text

In the matter of KBS India Ltd. Page 2 of 11 under Section 15 I of SEBI Act read with Rule 5 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and imposing penalties) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as ‘AO Rules’) and under the provisions of section 15A (b) of the SEBI Act for the alleged violation of Regulations 29(1) read with 29(3) of SAST Regulations by Noticee.

In the matter of KBS India Ltd. Page 3 of 11 that I was required to make disclosure under under Regulation 29(1) r/w Regulation 29(3) of the SAST Regulations, 2011. e. lt is on record that the disclosure was to be made by me by 19.12.2016 as per confirmation/evidence provided by me, however, the disclosure was made on 04.12.2019 resulting in a delay of 1079 days

In the matter of KBS India Ltd. Page 4 of 11 statute, minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority may refuse to impose penalty for justifiable reasons like the default occurred due to the bonafide belief that he was not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute or there was too technical or venial breach etc.” Para 26: Now, the question, of the penalty, by the Adjudicating Authority, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was warranted or not. We find that the allotment in question was undoubtedly covered under the exemption provided in regulation 3(1). There could not have been insistence by the Appellants-SEBI to comply with the requirements of regulation 3(4). It is also clear that when an acquisition is covered under regulation 3 the acquirer is required to report to the Board under the regulation 3(4) within the specified time, as referred above. In view of this undisputed position, merely because there was no Report filed, that itself cannot be read as serious defect or non-compliances of the said provisions. The Appellate Authority, after considering the material on record, including the events, referred in the pleadings, found that the respondents-company had no intention to suppress any material information from the appellants or the share holders.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:EAD-9/VKV/NK/2020-21/9406. 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.