sebi:Order/VV/AA/2021-22/12405
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violations established; monetary penalty imposed under Section 15HA and Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 12A
- s. 12
- s. 15H
- s. 15I
- s. 15J
- s. 11C
- s. 15F
- s. 28A
- s. 24
- s. 11(5)
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 24
Parties
- Nirmal Kotecha
Holding
The Noticee was found to have violated Section 12A of the SEBI Act, Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations 2003, Regulation 7(1A) of SAST Regulations 1997, and Regulation 13(3) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations 1992, and monetary penalty was imposed under Section 15HA and Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 75 referred to as “SAST Regulations”) for an additional 20% stake at a price not less than Rs. 250/- within 14 days, for allegedly violating creeping acquisition norms. With the reports in the media appearing about the impending offer at Rs. 250/-, the price of the shares of PSTL increased on December 22, 2008, when the stock markets opened for the day. On December 22, 2008, PSTL first informed BSE Limited (hereinafter referred to as “BSE”) and National Stock Exchange of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NSE”) that the company had not received any communication from SEBI regarding the media reports on Open Offer. BSE disseminated the said disclosure made by PSTL at 10:28:04 AM on December 22, 2008 on its website, while NSE disseminated the same at 10:30:00 AM on the same day.
Page 3 of 75 shares on December 22, 2008 consequent to the publication of news about the forged SEBI letter. It was also found that some persons/ entities had sold PSTL shares on December 22, 2008 and bought back the shares at lower prices on the same day taking advantage of both the price rise which occurred due to publication of the forged SEBI letter as well as the price fall which occurred due to a clarification on media reports on Open Offer provided by Mr. P.S. Saminathan to the stock exchanges (BSE and NSE) that the company had not received any communication directing Mr. P. S. Saminathan to make open offer.
Page 4 of 75 of Regulation 7(1A) of SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(3) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations. APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 7. Ms. Barnali Mukherjee was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer under Section 15I of the SEBI Act read with Rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Adjudication Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act for the alleged violation of the provisions of SEBI Act, PFUTP Regulations, 2003, SAST Regulations, 1997 and PIT Regulations, 1992 by the Noticee. Pursuant to the transfer of the case to different Adjudicating Officers, the undersigned has been appointed as the Adjudicating Officer in the present matter vide order dated August 09, 2019.
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/VV/AA/2021-22/12405. 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.