sebi:PKK/AO/134/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Ms. Leela Surana
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulations 3, 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(g) of the PFUTP Regulations by creating artificial volume and misleading appearance of trading in the scrip of KDIL, and is liable to monetary penalty under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 12 2. On the basis of an examination carried out, SEBI passed an exparte – interim order dated December 01, 2009 interalia directing Ms. Leela Surana not to buy, sell or deal in securities till further directions in this regard. The said exparte – interim
Page 3 of 12 Show Cause Notice, Reply and Personal Hearing 5. The AO issued a notice dated May 11, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’) under Rule 4 of the Adjudicating Rules to the Noticee to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against him and penalty be not imposed under Section 15 HA of the SEBI Act, for her alleged violation of the provisions of Regulations 3 , 4(2) (a) and 4 (2) (g) of the PFUTP Regulations.
Page 4 of 12 a) The Noticee submitted that she has already suffered for the last 15 months following the exparte-interim order debarring her from dealing in shares.
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:PKK/AO/134/2011. 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.