sebi:Order/VV/AK/2021-22/14586
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation of Regulation 13(4A) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations established; penalty of Rs 1,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, 1992
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 28A
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 7(2)
- Reg. 30
- Reg. 35(2)
Parties
- Sudha Gupta
Holding
Noticee Sudha Gupta, promoter of USG Tech Solution Ltd, violated Regulation 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) of PIT Regulations for 9 disclosure-triggering acquisitions and is liable for monetary penalty under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, with penalty of Rs 1,00,000 imposed.
Full text
Adjudication Order with respect to Sudha Gupta Page 2 of 18 in the matter of USG Tech Solution Ltd Appointment of Adjudicating Officer
Adjudication Order with respect to Sudha Gupta Page 3 of 18 in the matter of USG Tech Solution Ltd a. The present SCN is issued after a gap of almost 7 years from the date of alleged trades in USG. However, no reasons have been mentioned in the SCN for belatedly initiating present proceedings after an unexplained delay of almost 7 years, It is also pertinent to mention that the persons handling the subject matter of the present proceedings are no more associated with the Company. Further, no complete records/information is available with me. Hence, the present reply is being filed based on only bare minimum material/information/record available with me. Thus, the inordinate delay and absence of records / information is causing great prejudice to me in defending ourselves in present proceedings. In this regard, Notice has placed reliance on the orders of Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (Hereinafter referred to as “SAT”) in the matter of Garware Polyester Ltd & Ors vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 187 of 2021, dated August 09, 2021), Parag Sarda vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 279 of 2020, dated September 29, 2021), Ashok Shivlal Rupani & Anr. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 417 of 2018, dated August 22, 2019), Mr. Rakesh Kathotia vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 07 of 2016, dated May 27, 2019), Aditi Dalal, H B Stockholdings (SAT Appeal no. 114 of 2012), State of Gujarat v/s Patel Raghav Natha (AIR 1969 SC 1297).
Adjudication Order with respect to Sudha Gupta Page 4 of 18 in the matter of USG Tech Solution Ltd c. Noticee submitted that the allegation of non-disclosure under Regulation 13(4A) of PIT Regulations for buying shares of USG wherein the triggering dates are 16.12.2014 (12,000 shares), 19.12.2014 (13,300 shares), 31.12.2014 (15,000 shares), 18.02.2015 (17,000 shares), 20.02.2015 (12,150 shares}, 24.02.2015 (19,000 shares), 26.02.2015 (15,000 shares), 02.03.2015 (20,000 shares) and 16.03.2015 (25,000 shares). In this regard, Noticee stated that whenever it had purchased 25,000 or more shares in USG, it had always made disclosure under Regulation 13(4A) of PIT Regulations. Below are the disclosures made by me under Regulation 13(4A) of PIT Regulations:
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/AK/2021-22/14586. 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.