sebi:ORDER/BM/LD/2022-23/17202-04
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Mixed - violations found and penalties imposed on Noticee 1 and Noticee 2 for trading window closure non-compliance; no violation found under Regulation 30(11) of LODR Regulations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15H
- s. 15F
- s. 28A
- s. 28
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 201
- Reg. 30
- Reg. 9(1)
- Reg. 8(1)
- Reg. 30(11)
- Reg. 25
- Reg. 30(10)
Parties
- M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Noticee 1)
- Compliance Officer (Noticee 2)
- Noticee 3
Holding
Regulation 30(11) of LODR Regulations does not impose any obligation on a listed entity to confirm or deny media reports absent a query from a stock exchange, and no violation of Principle No. 4 of Schedule A of PIT Regulations was made out regarding the Jio-Facebook deal disclosure. However, Noticee 1 and Noticee 2 were found in violation of Clause 4 of Schedule B read with Regulation 9(1) of PIT Regulations for failure to close and notify the trading window.
Full text
Adjudication Proceedings in the matter of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. 2 | P a g e Noticee Alleged violations Regulatory provisions
Adjudication Proceedings in the matter of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. 3 | P a g e SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND HEARING
Adjudication Proceedings in the matter of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. 4 | P a g e multibillion-dollar stake in Reliance Jio, (ii) Facebook was close to signing a
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:ORDER/BM/LD/2022-23/17202-04. 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.