sebi:Order/AK/BS/2023-24/27567-27569
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violations of SAST Regulations established; penalty imposed under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 11B
- s. 11
- s. 15J
- s. 28A
- s. 47
- s. 68
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 8
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 29
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 29(2)
- Reg. 29(3)
- Reg. 8(1)
- Reg. 10(5)
- Reg. 10(6)
- Reg. 10(7)
- Reg. 6(1)(c)
Parties
- Noticee No. 1
- Noticee No. 2
- Noticee No. 3
Holding
The Noticees violated Regulations 10(5), 10(6) and 10(7) of the SAST Regulations by failing to make timely disclosures of inter-se promoter acquisitions exceeding 5%, and are liable for penalty under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of three entities in the matter of Sangam (India) Limited Page 2 of 24 APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
Adjudication Order in respect of three entities in the matter of Sangam (India) Limited Page 3 of 24 “Settlement Regulations”), which provides that, “An application may also at any time be rejected on the following grounds: Where the applicant who is required to appear, does not appear before the Internal Committee on more than one occasion”, as the Applicants did not appear for interaction in the settlement matter despite given multiple opportunities. Since the settlement application of the Noticees was rejected, instant Adjudication proceedings were approved against the Noticees for adjudging the alleged violations.
Adjudication Order in respect of three entities in the matter of Sangam (India) Limited Page 4 of 24 communication from SEBI on the emails specifically created for the purpose of settlement process and provided by the Noticees inadvertently skipped Noticee’s attention. Noticees also, vide email dated June 25, 2022, submitted that; “The Noticees post receiving of the email of Rejection of Settlement Application – made a written representation to Settlement Division vide email dated 26th April, 2021 explaining the whole scenario/ circumstances under which the Noticees missed the Hearing Notice(s), and requested for reconsideration of their Settlement Application(s), however no reply has been received till date to said representation. Nonetheless, the Noticees are still of the opinion that the matter concerning which SCN is issued, is a technical one, and must be settled given the efforts Noticees have been making voluntarily for settlement - even much prior to this SCN. At last, it is humbly requested that any adverse action or, inference against the Noticees in the matter of said SCN please be not taken, because our representation dated 26th April 2021 is already pending with the Settlement Division, and we are re-initiating discussions with the Settlement Division for settling matter. We assure to keep your good office posted about the filing of Settlement Application.”
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/AK/BS/2023-24/27567-27569. 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.