sebi:Order/SR/PP/2019-20/5811/134
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed on Noticee for violation of PIT Regulations, 1992
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 28A
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 12(2)
Parties
- Palle Suguna Reddy
Holding
The Noticee, Palle Suguna Reddy, violated regulation 13(4A) read with regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations, 1992 by failing to make required disclosures to YDL and BSE within two working days of transactions exceeding 25,000 shares. A monetary penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of Palle Suguna Reddy in the matter of Ybrant Digital Limited . Page 2 of 9 (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Adjudication Rules, 1995) to inquire into and adjudge under section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, 1992, the alleged violations of provisions of regulation 13(4A) read with (r/w) regulation 13(5) of PIT Regulations, 1992. The appointment was communicated vide communique dated January 28, 2019. Further, PIT Regulations, 1992 have been repealed and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 have come into force. The present proceedings against the Noticee is initiated in terms of PIT Regulations, 1992 r/w SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (specifically Regulation 12(2) under the head ‘Repeal and savings’). SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING
Adjudication Order in respect of Palle Suguna Reddy in the matter of Ybrant Digital Limited . Page 3 of 9 Regulations, 1992. It is alleged that the Noticee has failed to make the required disclosures to YDL and BSE within the required time frame, therefore it has violated regulation 13(4A) r/w regulation 13(5) of PIT Regulations, 1992.
Adjudication Order in respect of Palle Suguna Reddy in the matter of Ybrant Digital Limited . Page 4 of 9 course of hearing and reiterated the submissions made in the said letter. ARs requested time for filing additional submissions. Acceding to their request ARs were advised to file the additional submissions on or before October 24, 2019. Hearing minutes is on record. Thereafter, vide another email dated October 24, 2019, Noticee has sought time till October 28, 2019 for submission of reply. Acceding to the request of the Noticee for extension of time, Noticee was informed vide email dated October 24, 2019 that in case of non-receipt of Noticee’s reply with in the time stipulated , the matter will be proceeded as per material on record. I note that despite of seeking extensions Noticee has failed to submit additional submissions, as was desired by 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.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/SR/PP/2019-20/5811/134. 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.