sebi:ORDER/SRP/HKS/2018-19/1188
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Adjudication proceedings abated without going into the merits of the case; no penalty imposed.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 12A
- s. 15H
Regulations
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Late Prabir Chakravarti
Holding
The adjudication proceedings against the deceased Noticee, Late Prabir Chakravarti, stand abated without going into the merits of the case, and no penalty is imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 5 presently known as Alta Vista International FZE (hereinafter referred to as “Vintage”) was the only entity who subscribed to the issue of 11,22,628 GDRs of BAL and the subscription amount was paid by Vintage by obtaining a loan from European American Investment Bank AG (hereinafter referred to as “EURAM Bank”) through a loan agreement dated November 23, 2010. BAL provided security towards the loan obtained by Vintage, through a Pledge Agreement dated November 23, 2010 signed between BAL and EURAM Bank, wherein BAL pledged the GDR proceeds against the loan availed by Vintage for subscription of GDRs of BAL.
Page 3 of 5 4. Further, it was alleged that Board of Directors of BAL (hereinafter referred to as “BoD”) approved the Board resolution dated September 28, 2010. The Noticee was part of the BoD of BAL at that point in time and had attended the aforesaid Meeting of the BoD held on September 28, 2010. It was observed that the BoD of BAL in the aforesaid Board Meeting had authorized Mr. Ajay Kumar Dalmia, Authorized Signatory of the Company to sign, execute, any application agreement and other paper(s) from time to time as may be required by the EURAM Bank and also authorized the EURAM Bank to use BAL’s GDR proceeds deposited with EURAM Bank as security in connection with loan provided to Vintage for subscribing the GDRs issued by BAL.
Page 4 of 5 Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Adjudication Rules") read with Section 15-I of the SEBI Act, 1992, to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be initiated and penalty should not be imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992, on the Noticee for the alleged violation of the provisions of Section 12A (a), (b), (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1) of the SEBI PFUTP Regulations, 2003.
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/SRP/HKS/2018-19/1188. 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.