sebi:HB/AO-05/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Alleged violations not established; matter disposed of
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- Shri Vikas Bengani
Holding
The alleged violations of Regulation 3(a), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(e) of the PFUTP Regulations by Shri Vikas Bengani were not established, and the matter was disposed of without imposing any penalty.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 the options and ways for expansion plans, acquisition and any other related matter for growth of the company and to consider the increase in authorized capital and issue of right/preferential shares. on next trading day. Volume increased from average daily trading volume of 3685 shares to average daily trading volume of 22606 shares for remaining investigation period. 2 11.03.2005 at 04:31PM The Board meeting which was scheduled to be held on March 08, 2005 has been postponed as the directors of the company have gone out of station. The price came down from closing price Rs.113.96 on March 11, 2005 to Rs.110.75 on next trading day. There was negligible effect on the volume.
Page 3 of 9 5. The investigation revealed that Shri. Vikas Bengani (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee/ VB”) had bought shares from the Agarwal Family during the investigation period. From the available records it is observed that the VB had transferred a total of 10000 shares of EIL to one shri. Rajesh Jannat Panchal by off-market transfers on March 14, 2005 who subsequently transferred that shares to Shri. Ashok Bhagat (hereinafter referred to as “AB”). Demat Statements of AB it is observed that AB had transferred shares to the clearing member pool account of broker RSSB, for the settlement of delivery obligations of Agarwal Family. In light of such trades it was alleged that VB violated the provisions of the Regulations 3(a), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 4(2) (e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulations’), and therefore, liable for monetary penalty under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).
Page 4 of 9 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING 7. Show Cause Notice (ADJ/EIL/HB/PM/183209/2009) dated November 13, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the Noticee under rule 4 of the Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be initiated against the Noticee and penalty be not imposed under section 15HA of SEBI Act for the alleged violations specified in the SCN.
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:HB/AO-05/2010. 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.