sebi:ISD/FIEM/AO/DRK-AKS/EAD3-681-684/06-09-2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violations held established; penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 each imposed on all four noticees
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 29
- Reg. 2(a)
Parties
- Shri Rahul Jain
- Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Jain
- Ms. Seema Jain
- Ms. Aanchal Jain
Holding
Noticee Nos. 1 to 3 violated Regulations 13(3), 13(4), 13(4A) & 13(5) of PIT Regulations and Regulations 29(2) & 29(3) of SAST Regulations, and Noticee No. 4 violated Regulations 13(1), 13(3), 13(4), 13(4A) & 13(5) of PIT Regulations and Regulations 29(1), 29(2) & 29(3) of SAST Regulations for non-disclosure of changes on April 30, 2013 and May 01, 2013, and each was penalized Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 13 Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‗Adjudication Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15 A (b) of the SEBI Act for the violations of Regulations 13 (1), 13 (3), 13 (4), 13 (4A) and 13 (5) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'PIT Regulations') and Regulations 29 (1), 29 (2) & 29 (3) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‗SAST Regulations’) alleged to have been committed by (1) Shri Rahul Jain (2) Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Jain (3) Ms. Seema Jain and (4) Ms. Aanchal Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'Noticee No. 1 to 4 respectively' or all collectively as 'Noticees') in respect of non disclosure of change in shareholding in FIEM and the same was communicated vide communiqué dated January 13, 2014. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY
Page 3 of 13 shareholding around 25%), 12.54% (total shareholding around 27.20%) and 4.18% (total shareholding around 6.79%) respectively.
Page 4 of 13 In April 2013, noticees had mutual discussions to arrive at a family arrangement to reorganize the family‘s shareholding in the Company such that: (a) the shareholding of each of Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Jain, Mrs. Seema jain and Ms. Aanchal Jain in the Company would increase: and (b) Shri Rahul Jain‘s shareholding would consequently reduce, since he would transfer shares then held by him to the other noticees. The intention of noticees was to ensure that Shri Jagjeeven Kumar Jain and Mrs. Seema Jain would become the largest shareholders among the family members. At all times, noticees were in agreement that such share transfers would be inter-se between the family members and would not result in any increase in the aggregate shareholding of the family members. To arrive at such desired shareholding, Shri Rahul Jain as the largest shareholder of the Promoter Group agreed to gift shares to each of Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Jain, Mrs. Seema Jain and Ms. Aanchal Jain.
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:ISD/FIEM/AO/DRK-AKS/EAD3-681-684/06-09-2015. 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.