sebi:PG/AB/AO-14/2012
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 the Noticee for non-compliance with summons under Section 15A(a) of SEBI Act and violation of Sections 13 and 18 read with Section 2(i) of SCR Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 24
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 12
- s. 13
- s. 15I
- s. 15J
- s. 15H
- s. 23H
- s. 11C(6)
- s. 11C
- s. 11C(2)
- s. 23I
- s. 23J
- s. 23
- s. 17
- s. 18(1)
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 6
Parties
- Vinayak Maruti Bhanage
Holding
The Noticee was held liable for penalty under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act for non-compliance with the summons dated June 17, 2010 issued by the Investigating Authority, and for violation of Sections 13 and 18 read with Section 2(i) of the SCR Act for off-market transactions that did not qualify as spot delivery contracts. A total penalty of Rs. 3,50,000 was levied.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of Vinayak Maruti Bhanage in the matter of Indo-Pacific Software and Entertainment Ltd. Page 2 of 30 development of multiplexes etc. SEBI had conducted an investigation into the dealing in the shares of IPSE during 2007.
Adjudication Order in respect of Vinayak Maruti Bhanage in the matter of Indo-Pacific Software and Entertainment Ltd. Page 3 of 30 r/w Section 2(i) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (“SCR Act”) and was liable for penalty under Section 23H of SCR Act.
Adjudication Order in respect of Vinayak Maruti Bhanage in the matter of Indo-Pacific Software and Entertainment Ltd. Page 4 of 30 • The transfers executed by the Noticee were off market transfers and have in no way affected the price and volume of the scrip. • The adjudicating officer has no jurisdiction for adjudging a case for violation of SCR Act as he has not been appointed under SCR Rules and hence the SCN is not valid. • The investigation period of the matter is from February 5, 2007 to August 30, 2007 while the observations relating to off market transaction ranges beyond the investigation period. Thus, the investigation has been carried beyond the investigation period and would be void. • Since the shares have been transferred in electronic mode, Sec. 2(i)(a) of the SCR Act is not applicable on the transaction. • The Noticee had complied with summons dated January 8, 2010 by submitting all the requisite information by letter dated January 16, 2010 • The Summons dated June 17, 2010 was not received by the Noticee as he was out of town and the said summons was pasted. • There was no intention to suppress any information and the Noticee has promptly replied to the first summons and the SCN. • It has not been proved that how non submission of the information by Noticee has impacted investigation since SEBI could avail all information from intermediaries. The information sought from the Noticee could have been obtained from other intermediaries. • No adjudication can be c
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:PG/AB/AO-14/2012. 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.