sebi:Order/NR/2021-2022/12037

SEBI · SEBI · 2013-08-22 · Narendra Rawat, General Manager & 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

Proceedings disposed without monetary penalty

Provisions invoked

• s. 15A
• s. 19
• s. 3(1)
• s. 15I
• s. 15J
• s. 15
• s. 18(7)

Regulations

• Reg. 6
• Reg. 8(2)
• Reg. 8(1)

Parties

• M/s Garg Corporation Limited

Holding

The Adjudicating Officer held that the Noticee, a promoter of Himachal Fibres Limited, violated Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of the SAST Regulations, 1997 by making yearly disclosure for F.Y. 2009-10/2010 with 8 days delay, but imposed no monetary penalty and disposed of the proceedings initiated vide SCN dated August 22, 2013.

Full text

Adjudication Order in the matter of Himachal Fibres Limited Page 2 of 9 Show Cause Notice, Reply and Personal Hearing 4. A show cause notice dated August 22, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'SCN') was issued to the Noticee under Rule 4 of the said Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held and penalty should not be imposed on it under Section 15A (b) of the SEBI Act for the alleged violation of the provisions of law. It was alleged in the SCN Noticee made yearly disclosure pertaining to F.Y. 2009-10 with 8 days of delay and thus allegedly violated the provisions of Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of Takeover Regulations.

Adjudication Order in the matter of Himachal Fibres Limited Page 3 of 9 Consideration of Issues, Evidence and Findings 7. I have carefully perused the charges levelled against the Noticee in the SCN, written submissions made and all the documents available on record. In the instant matter, the following issues arise for consideration and determination:

Adjudication Order in the matter of Himachal Fibres Limited Page 4 of 9 Submissions made by the Noticee: 10. The Noticee, vide his letter dated October 10, 2013 submitted as under: (i) That the HFL was formally declared Sick Company under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (“SICA”) (Case No. 219/2001) on Sep 18, 2007. (ii) That the operating Agency submitted a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (“DRS” or “Scheme”) to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“BIFR”) on Nov 20, 2008. (iii) That BIFR sanctioned the Scheme on July 21, 2009. (iv) That BIFR discharged the company from the purview of SICA and protection under SICA and the Scheme was revoked on Oct 13, 2010. (v) That the Scheme sanctioned by BIFR on July 21, 2009 vide clause 13.7 provided certain reliefs and exemptions from SEBI as a measure of revival of the company which was declared sick by the BIFR. (vi) Clause 13.7 of the Scheme reads as: “(i) To exempt the company, its promoters/directors/associates from eh provisions of SEBI(SAST) Regulations, 1997 for issuance of fresh share capital towards funds inducted/ to be inducted for revival during the period of rehabilitation. (ii) To consider waiver of all penalties for the non-compliances/ delays as per the regulations of the SEBI to the company and the promoters/directors”. (vii) That the BIFR had vide its order dated July 21, 2009 sanctioned this DRS with immediate effect as on that date which gave effect to the sub-clause, the relevant w

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/NR/2021-2022/12037. 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.