sebi:PB/AO-24-31/2011

SEBI · SEBI · 2010-07-28 · Parag Basu, 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

Proceedings disposed of without penalty; allegations of violation not established

Provisions invoked

Regulations

Parties

Holding

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Noticees did not violate regulations 3(d) and 4(2)(f) of the PFUTP Regulations, and accordingly did not impose any penalty under section 15HA of the SEBI Act.

Full text

Page 2 of 9 Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and consequently, liable for monetary penalty under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”):

Page 3 of 9 5. The Noticees filed their reply to the SCNs vide letters dated January 09, 2011 and January 10, 2011. In their reply the Noticees have denied the

Page 4 of 9 iv. Fourthly, GHCL vide letter dated October 19, 2009 informed stock exchange about the receipt of arbitration award dated July 23, 2009 from the advocates of the claimant company at the time of filing the shareholding pattern for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 by reference to a letter dated September 8, 2009 by which the advocates of the said claimant company had forwarded the arbitration order to the NSE, BSE & ROC.

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:PB/AO-24-31/2011. 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.