sebi:RA/DPS/03/2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation of regulation 8(3) found; penalty of Rs 8,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b)
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 8
- Reg. 8(3)
Parties
- Nature India Communique Limited
Holding
The Noticee violated regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997 by failing to make yearly disclosures for 1998 to 2011 until August 08, 2012, and a penalty of Rs 8,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act was imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 10 2. Pursuant to the rejection of said consent application on account of non payment of the settlement amount within 15 days from the receipt of said communique, SEBI taking into account the irregularities of Noticee in regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations since 1998 to 2011 initiatedadjudication proceedings against the Noticee under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act.
Page 3 of 10 3. 8(3) 30.04.2000 08.08.2012 4,483 4. 8(3) 30.04.2001 08.08.2012 4,118 5. 8(3) 30.04.2002 08.08.2012 3,753 6. 8 (3) 30.04.2003 08.08.2012 3,388 7. 8 (3) 30.04.2004 08.08.2012 3,022 8. 8 (3) 30.04.2005 08.08.2012 2,657 9. 8 (3) 30.04.2006 08.08.2012 2,292 10. 8 (3) 30.04.2007 08.08.2012 1,927 11. 8 (3) 30.04.2008 08.08.2012 1,561 12. 8 (3) 30.04.2009 08.08.2012 1,196 13. 8 (3) 30.04.2010 08.08.2012 831 14. 8 (3) 30.04.2011 08.08.2012 466
Page 4 of 10 compliance status was reported by the Company to the SEBI with Consent Application. • Delayed intimation is purely technical in nature and without any malafide. The delayed intimation is neither deliberate nor wilful, but has occurred inadvertently and to the best of our knowledge and understanding has not caused any loss, financial or economical to any of the shareholders or anybody otherwise thereto. • No economic benefit has occurred to the Noticee or to its management and no loss can be assumed to have caused to any of the investors on account of delayed submissions of disclosures. • On the grounds Noticee / company request for not to initiate any inquiry against the company and allow them to deposit `6,33,750/- as earlier consented. • During the hearing, AR of Noticee referred the Order of the Hon’ble SAT in the matter of Shri Maganlal M. Doshi&Ors.v/s SEBI (Appeal No. 72 of 2002)dated May 18, 2004 and prayed that the consent amount and additional token penalty only be imposed upon Noticeetaking liberal view.
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:RA/DPS/03/2015. 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.