sebi:Order/BD/VS/2020-21/7999

SEBI · SEBI · 2017-05-23 · B J Dilip, Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

The Adjudicating Officer found that Beckons violated Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(f), (k) and (r) of the PFUTP Regulations, and violated Section 21 of the SCRA read with Clause 36(7) of the Listing Agreement. Penalties of INR 1,000,000,000 under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act and INR 25,000,000 under Section 23E of the SCRA were imposed, for a total of INR 1,025,000,000.

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 12A
• s. 12
• s. 21
• s. 15H
• s. 15J
• s. 28A
• s. 23J
• s. 23
• s. 23E
• s. 376

Regulations

• Reg. 4
• Reg. 3
• Reg. 4(1)
• Reg. 3(a)
• Reg. 3(c)

Parties

• Beckons Industries Limited

Holding

Beckons devised and executed a fraudulent and deceptive GDR subscription arrangement and concealed material information about the actual subscription, loan and pledge arrangements, violating the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations. Its failure to disclose the pledge and related arrangements to the stock exchange also violated Section 21 of the SCRA read with Clause 36(7) of the Listing Agreement, attracting the penalties imposed.

Full text

Adjudication Order in the matter of Beckons Industries Limited Page 2 of 25 Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act, 1992”) read with regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1), 4(2) (f), (k) and (r) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations, 2003”)

Adjudication Order in the matter of Beckons Industries Limited Page 3 of 25 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING

Adjudication Order in the matter of Beckons Industries Limited Page 4 of 25 8. The Hon’ble SAT has again in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Tayal & Others v SEBI (Appeal No. 68 of 2013 decided on February 11, 2014), inter-alia, observed that – “………………As rightly contended by Mr. Rustomjee, learned senior counsel for respondents, appellants have neither filed reply to show cause notices issued to them nor availed opportunity of personal hearing offered to them in the adjudication proceedings and, therefore, appellants are presumed to have admitted charges levelled against them in the show cause notices…………….”.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/BD/VS/2020-21/7999. 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.