sebi:PKK/AO/39/2011
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. 1,00,000 imposed on the Noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 23
- s. 23J
- s. 23A
Parties
- M/s.NovaGold Petro-Resources Ltd. (Formerly known as Osian LPG Bottling Ltd.)
Holding
The Noticee violated Clause 35 of the Listing Agreement by submitting a wrong shareholding pattern for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 and is liable for monetary penalty under Section 23A(a) of SCRA, with a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 2. IA found major changes in shareholding pattern of Persons Acting in Concert (PACs) group and Indian Public. The holding of the PACs reduced by 2, 48,000 shares (a change of 4.49%) during September 30, 2004 to December 31, 2004. Accordingly, IA called certain information such as details of shares purchased and sold by the promoters, directors, PACs and group entities of the Noticee during the investigation period. The Noticee vide its letter dated January 03, 2007 to the IA inter- alia submitted that “there was no purchase and sale of shares by promoters, directors, PACs and group entities for the period July 19, 2004 to December 12, 2004. Due to some misunderstanding / confusion certain shareholders were treated as PACs while actually they were not related to the Promoters, Director and their family members. Thus, it was found that the Noticee had not submitted the correct shareholding pattern for the quarter ended December 2004. Thus it was alleged that Noticee has violated Clause 35 of the Listing Agreement.
Page 3 of 9 undersigned as AO, consequent to his transfer to Enforcement Department. Notice, Reply & Hearing: 5. A Show Cause Notice dated September 16, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’) was issued to the Noticee in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of Adjudication Rules requiring the Noticee to show cause as to why an enquiry should not be held for the violations alleged to have been committed by the Noticee. It was alleged in the SCN that the Noticee was required to furnish the shareholding pattern to BSE in accordance with Clause 35 of the Listing Agreement. The Noticee however, submitted wrong shareholding pattern to BSE. The Noticee furnished wrong details with regard to PACs shareholding. The details furnished by the Noticee to BSE were provided to the Noticee as Annexure to the SCN. The Noticee was thus alleged to have violated Clause 35 of the Listing Agreement and therefore, liable for monetary penalty U/S 23A (a) of SCRA.
Page 4 of 9 me on November 10, 2010. However, the same also returned undelivered with the remark “shifted”. The hearing notice was then published in English and Hindi Editions of the Hindustan Times on February 09, 2011 asking it to appear before me on February 10, 2011. The Noticee did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing granted to it. It be noted that Noticee had not informed its new address even though it was aware of the pending adjudication proceedings. Therefore, I am proceeding with the inquiry taking into account the documents and material as available on record.
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/39/2011. 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.