sebi:Order/PM/PA/2021-22/14600

SEBI · SEBI · 2017-05-18 · Prasanta Mahapatra, 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

Allegations of violation of Section 16 of SCRA, 1956 read with SEBI Notification G.S.R 219(E) dated March 2, 2000, Sections 13 and 18 of SCRA read with Section 2(i) of SCRA established; penalty of ₹2,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act

Provisions invoked

Regulations

Parties

Holding

The Noticee's off-market transfer of 5,00,000 shares of Sampada Chemicals Ltd. without payment of consideration violated Section 16 of SCRA, 1956 read with SEBI Notification dated March 2, 2000, and Sections 13 and 18 read with Section 2(i) of SCRA, 1956, as the transactions did not qualify as spot delivery contracts.

Full text

Adjudication Order in respect of Prarthana Tarunkumar Brambhatt Page 2 of 25 in the matter of Sampada Chemicals Ltd. 2. The investigation also found that the Noticee pursuant to change in her shareholding in the scrip of SCL had failed to make the requisite disclosures under the provisions of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers), 1997 (hereinafter referred to “SAST Regulations”) and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to “PIT Regulations”) to the Company and to BSE. Therefore, it is alleged that the Noticee had violated the provisions of Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 7(2) of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 1997 and Regulation 35 of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 and Regulation 13(1) and 13(3) read with Regulation 13(5) of SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 1992 and Regulation 12 of SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 2015.

Adjudication Order in respect of Prarthana Tarunkumar Brambhatt Page 3 of 25 in the matter of Sampada Chemicals Ltd. Noticee was delivered at her address. The Noticee vide letter dated January 24, 2018 had made a request for carrying out inspection of documents, however, I note that the Noticee did not carry out the inspection of documents despite provided with an opportunity to do so. Thereafter, in the interest of natural justice and in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(3) of SCR Adjudication Rules and Rule 4(3) of SEBI Adjudication Rules, the Noticee was given an opportunity of hearing on February 24, 2021, which was communicated through email at the Noticee’s ID: PRATHANA.BHATT@GMAIL.COM on February 11, 2021. The Authorized Representative (AR) of the Noticee vide email dated February 22, 2021 expressed her inability to attend the hearing owing to pre-occupation with other hearings before the Hon’ble SAT. Subsequently, vide email dated April 22, 2021, the Noticee was given an opportunity of hearing on May 7, 2021, which was communicated to the Noticee and her AR by email. The AR of the Noticee vide email dated May 5, 2021 had once again requested for adjournment of hearing owing to Covid-19 pandemic, which was considered favourably and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to May 21, 2021, which was communicated to the Noticee and AR through email on May 6, 2021. The Noticee vide emails dated May 19, 2021 and May 21, 2021 submitted her reply to the charges alleged in the S

Adjudication Order in respect of Prarthana Tarunkumar Brambhatt Page 4 of 25 in the matter of Sampada Chemicals Ltd. of filing adequate reply. In these circumstances, the SCN ought to be discharged vis-à-vis the Noticee.

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.

Analyse this matter in Ontology · Plans

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/PM/PA/2021-22/14600. 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.