sebi:MC/AO-09/2012

SEBI · SEBI · 2009-05-07 · Maninder Cheema, Adjudicating Officer

Reviewed by Varun Matlani, Advocate — Securities Lawyer practicing in SAT and SEBI

Facts / Headnote

Penalty imposed on noticee for violation of Section 11C(3) read with 11C(2) of SEBI Act; allegation of PFUTP violation not established

Provisions invoked

s. 15A
s. 15
s. 15J
s. 12
s. 11C(3)

Regulations relied on

SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 — 4(1)
SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 — 4(2)(a)

Parties

Rinkal K. Jain

Holding

The noticee was found to have violated Section 11C(3) read with 11C(2) of the SEBI Act by failing to respond to summons, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed under Section 15A(a). The allegation of violating Regulation 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the PFUTP Regulations was not established.

Full text

Adjudication Order in respect of Rinkal K. Jain in the matter of E.Star Infotech Ltd. June 7, 2012 Order No. MC/AO- 09/2012 Page 2 of 6

Adjudication Order in respect of Rinkal K. Jain in the matter of E.Star Infotech Ltd. June 7, 2012 Order No. MC/AO- 09/2012 Page 3 of 6

Adjudication Order in respect of Rinkal K. Jain in the matter of E.Star Infotech Ltd. June 7, 2012 Order No. MC/AO- 09/2012 Page 4 of 6

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.

Analyse this matter in Ontology · Plans

Source: SecMarx — sebi:MC/AO-09/2012. 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.