sebi:Order/PM/VC/2020-21/9633-9638
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation established; penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on each of the six Noticees
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 28A
Regulations
- Reg. 29(2)
- Reg. 29(3)
- Reg. 2(1)(q)
Parties
- Kiritbhai Nathubhai Vaghani
- Vipulkumar Nathubhai Vaghani
- Jitubhai Nathubhai Vaghani
- Ashmitaben Kiritbhai Vaghani
- Ritaben Vipulbhai Vaghani
- Rekhaben Jitubhai Vaghani
Holding
The Noticees, as persons acting in concert, violated Regulation 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SAST Regulations by failing to disclose cumulative decreases exceeding 2% on three occasions, and each is liable to a monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 15 period of January 01, 2017 to September 30, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘relevant period’) to examine the violation, if any, of the provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SAST Regulations'). The shares of ATCL are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSE'). It was observed by SEBI that Mr. Kiritbhai Nathubhai Vaghani (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee 1’), Mr. Vipulkumar Nathubhai Vaghani (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee 2’), Mr. Jitubhai Nathubhai Vaghani (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee 3’), Ms. Ashmitaben Kiritbhai Vaghani (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee 4’), Ms. Ritaben Vipulbhai Vaghani (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee 5’) and Rekhaben Jitubhai Vaghani (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee 6’ and hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘Noticees’) had continuously sold shares of ATCL in between the period of March 17, 2017 to March 28, 2017. However, it is alleged that no disclosure was made by the Noticees under the provisions of Regulation 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SAST Regulations. In view of the same, SEBI initiated adjudication proceedings against the Noticees under the provisions of Section 15A(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’) APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
Page 3 of 15 failure on the part of the Noticees to comply with the provisions of Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) of the SAST Regulations. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING:
Page 4 of 15 said replies, the Noticees, while accepting their respective transactions, have contended that they were not Persons Acting in Concert (PAC) and, therefore, no disclosure requirements were triggered by their trades in the scrip of ATCL.
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/PM/VC/2020-21/9633-9638. 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.