sebi:Order/GR/AE/2020-21/8751
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b); alleged violation of Regulation 29(2) SAST Regulations, 2011 not penalized
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15J
- s. 28A
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 29(2)
- Reg. 7(2)
- Reg. 201
Parties
- Shri Anoop Kumar Garg
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulations 13(3) and 13(4) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations, 1992 and is liable to a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, 1992, while no penalty was imposed for the alleged violation of Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 as the change was by sale.
Full text
Page 2 of 14 shares or 1% of total shareholding or voting rights, whichever is lower. However, by not filing such disclosures, the Noticee was alleged to have violated Regulation 13(4) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations, 1992. Further, as the Noticee was holding more than 5% shares of Centron, he was required to file disclosures within two working days to the company under Regulation 13(3) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations, 1992 regarding any change in his holding by more than 2%. However, by not filing such disclosures, the Noticee was alleged to have violated Regulation 13(3) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations, 1992. Similarly, the Noticee was required to file disclosures within two working days to the company and stock exchanges under Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SAST Regulations, 2011’) for the changes in his shareholding by more than 2%. However, by not filing such disclosures, the Noticee was alleged to have violated Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) of SAST Regulations,
Page 3 of 14 the remark “Addressee moved”. Thereafter, in terms of Rule 7 of the Adjudication Rules, a copy of the SCN was affixed at the last known address of Noticee vide letter dated March 19, 2020. Vide the aforesaid letter dated March 19, 2020, the Noticee was granted 14 days time to submit reply to the SCN. However, as per the records, I note that no reply to the SCN was furnished by the Noticee.
Page 4 of 14 “...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 leveled against them in the show cause notices...”
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/GR/AE/2020-21/8751. 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.