sebi:PPL/AAK/AO/DRK/AS/EAD-3/73/2009
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 violation of Regulation 7 of SEBI Takeover Regulations; Section 15H held inapplicable.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15H
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 7(2)
Parties
- Shri Arshad Afzal Khan
Holding
The noticee violated Regulation 7 of the SEBI Takeover Regulations by failing to disclose his 5.82% shareholding in PPL, and is liable to a penalty of Rs. 7,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992. Section 15H was held inapplicable to a Regulation 7 violation.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 3. I was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer , (subsequent to the transfer of Shri Biju S.) vide order dated December 10, 2008 under section 15 I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Rule 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15A(b) and 15H of the SEBI Act, 1992 the violation of the provisions of Regulation 7 of the SEBI Takeover Regulations.
Page 3 of 9 7. In response to the said hearing notice, the noticee vide letter dated November 07, 2007 expressed his intention to avail the consent process as per circular no. EFD/ED/Cir-1/2007 dated April 20, 2007 and settle the present adjudication proceedings. The noticee vide the aforesaid letter also sought for the guidance to get the aforesaid circular on consent scheme. Therefore a copy of the said circular was sent to the noticee vide letter dated November 12, 2007 at the same address of the noticee as mentioned in his letter dated November 07, 2007, however the said letter dated November 12, 2007 returned undelivered with the remark ‘Office Closed’. In this reference it is noted that no consent application is received from the noticee as intended even after a lapse of almost 2 years.
Page 4 of 9 October 19, 2007 and March 24, 2009, but even after due service of all the notices, the noticee failed to make his submissions with reference to the allegations leveled against him in the aforesaid show cause notice and to appear for personal hearings. The aforesaid show cause notice sent through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due was returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remark ‘not claimed’.
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:PPL/AAK/AO/DRK/AS/EAD-3/73/2009. 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.