sebi:ISD/SGPL/FDIL/AO/DRK/AKS/EAD-3/295/61-11
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation found; consolidated penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 12
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 7(2)
- Reg. 58
Parties
- Sethia Gems Pvt. Ltd.
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that Sethia Gems Pvt. Ltd. violated Regulation 13(1) and Regulation 13(3) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations, 1992 and Regulations 7(1) read with 7(2) of the Takeover Regulations, 1997, and imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Page 2 of 12 2. Based on the alert, information was collected from Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSE’), NSDL and CDSL and clarification was sought from the company and RGPL.
Page 3 of 12 5. However, the said notice came back undelivered with remark “office closed”. Vide letter dated 01.07.2011 the SCN was served through “Registered Post Acknowledgement Due”. In the said notice, it was alleged as follows: a. From the investigation report it is observed that noticee had offloaded 10,00,000 shares (6% of the paid up share capital of the company) to RGPL on 30.10.2009. After the transfer of the shares, noticee’s holding in FDIL had become zero. It is alleged that no disclosure has been made by the noticee for such transfer as required under PIT Regulations to the company which has led to the violation of Regulation 13 (3) read with Regulation 13 (5) of PIT Regulations. b. It was further observed that the transferred shares of FDIL have been transferred back to the noticee on 15.03.2010 by RGPL. It is alleged that the noticee had not disclosed his acquisition of shares of FDIL to the company and to the stock exchange as required under Regulations 7 (1) read with 7 (2) of Takeover Regulations. c. Further, it is observed that under Regulation 13 (1) of PIT Regulations, noticee was required to disclose to the company within 2 working days of the receipt of intimation of allotment of shares or the acquisition of shares, as the case may be. However, it is alleged that no disclosure for such acquisition of shares has been made by the noticee to the company as required under PIT Regulations.
Page 4 of 12 7. Thereafter a final hearing notice dated 26.08.2011 was sent to the noticee by “Registered Post Acknowledgement Due” granting time till 05.09.2011 to submit a detailed reply to the SCN and attend the hearing on 08.09.2011 at SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai. The said hearing notice came back undelivered with remark “unclaimed”. Subsequently another hearing notice dated 26.09.2011 along with the first two hearing notices were affixed at the noticee’s address on 28.09.2011. The last hearing notice granted noticee time till 05.10.2011 to submit a detailed reply to the SCN and attend the hearing on 11.10.2011 at SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai. The hearing notice dated 26.09.2011 was also uploaded at the SEBI website under the heading “unserved summons / notices” and was also sent by “Registered Post Acknowledgement Due” but it came back undelivered with remark “door closed”.
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/SGPL/FDIL/AO/DRK/AKS/EAD-3/295/61-11. 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.