sebi:PB/AO-95-105/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticees held liable for violation of Regulation 10 of SAST Regulations, 1997; jointly and severally liable to pay monetary penalty under section 15H(ii) of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 41(3)
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 10
- s. 152A
- s. 11
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 7
Parties
- Arjunlal N. Uttamchandani
- Nilesh G. Uttamchandani
- Suresh Kumar N Uttamchandani
- Maheshkumar N. Uttamchandani
- Shankerlal N Uttamchandani
- Jivenlal N Uttamchandani
- Hitendra J. Uttamchandani
- Kamlaben Uttamchandani
- Rekhaben Uttamchandani
- Shailesh G. Uttamchandani
- Laxmiben S. Uttamchandani
Holding
The Noticees violated Regulation 10 of the SAST Regulations, 1997 by failing to make disclosures upon acquisition of shares, and are jointly and severally liable for monetary penalty under section 15H(ii) of the SEBI Act. The retransfer of shares from RFPL and CSL to the Noticees constituted an acquisition of shares within the meaning of the SAST Regulations.
Full text
Page 2 of 27 2. The findings of the investigation led to the allegation that Arjunlal N. Uttamchndani, Nilesh G. Uttamchandani, Suresh Kumar N Uttamchandani,Maheshkumar N. Uttamchandani, Shankerlal N Uttamchandani, Jivenlal N Uttamchandani, Hitendra J. Uttamchandani, Kamlaben Uttamchandani, Rekhaben Uttamchandani, Shailesh G. Uttamchandani and Laxmiben S.Uttamchandani (hereinafter referred to as “Noticees”) had violated regulation 10 of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SAST Regulations’) and consequently, liable for monetary penalty under section 15H (ii) of the SEBI Act.
Page 3 of 27 vide their letters dated August 06, 2008 stated that there is a discrepancy in the SCN regarding the details of the transferee mentioned in page 2 para 3 of the SCN and that mentioned in the Annexure 2 and denied the allegations.
Page 4 of 27 Therefore the said transaction was of composite character and is also seen from the following points, facts and circumstances. (i) Circumstances responsible for transaction : The Company IPL was in need of funds and the promoters were required to arrange for funds. (ii) Parties: The shares were first transferred to CSL, member of Ahmedabad
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:PB/AO-95-105/2010. 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.