sebi:Order/AA/AR/2020-21/9195
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 against Eyelight Events & Promoters India Pvt. Ltd disposed of (no violation found); penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed on Rosita Rabindra
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 28A
- s. 2(30)
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 12
- Reg. 7(2)
- Reg. 201
- Reg. 2(g)
Parties
- Eyelight Events and Promotions Private Limited
- Rosita Rabindra
Holding
The adjudication proceedings against Eyelight Events & Promoters India Pvt. Ltd for alleged violation of Regulation 7(1A) of the SAST Regulations were disposed of as no disclosure obligation arose for a seller/transferor. Rosita Rabindra was held to have violated Regulation 13(4) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations for failing to disclose her sale of 1,700 shares of NIIT Technologies valued at Rs. 7.18 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 was imposed.
Full text
Adjudication Order in the respect of Eyelight Events and Promotions Pvt Ltd Page 1 of 9 BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. Order/AA/AR/2020-21/9195]
Adjudication Order in the respect of Eyelight Events and Promotions Pvt Ltd Page 2 of 9 under the provisions of section 15 A(b) of the SEBI Act, the alleged violation of the relevant provisions of the SAST Regulation by the noticee, wherever applicable. Pursuant to the transfer of Shri Suresh B. Menon to another department, I was appointed as an AO in the present matter vide communique of appointment of AO dated March 25, 2019.
Adjudication Order in the respect of Eyelight Events and Promotions Pvt Ltd Page 3 of 9 capital of Sanraa) to 16,54,950 shares (which is 6.23% of the post GDR issued share capital) during the period from March 31, 2008 to June 30, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Investigation Period’). The abovementioned change in the shareholding of the Noticee was more than the threshold limit of 2% and thus triggered disclosure requirements as prescribed under Regulation 7(1A) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SAST Regulations’). However, it was alleged in the SCN that the Noticee failed to comply with the aforementioned disclosure requirements.
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/AA/AR/2020-21/9195. 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.