sebi:RA/JP/225-227/2017
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalties imposed on all three Noticees under section 15 G of the SEBI Act for violation of PIT Regulations read with section 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
- s. 15
- s. 370
- s. 12A
- s. 12
- s. 15G
- s. 15J
- s. 307
- s. 372
- s. 15A
- s. 15F
- s. 2(77)
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 12(1)
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 3(i)
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 6(1)
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 2(e)
- Reg. 2(h)
- Reg. 12
- Reg. 201
- Reg. 3A
- Reg. 3(1)
Parties
- Noticee No. 1 (Compliance Officer of Jagran Prakashan Limited)
- Mrs. Mansi (Noticee No. 2)
- Kanchan Properties Ltd. (Noticee No. 3)
Holding
The Noticees, being insiders, traded in the shares of Jagran Prakashan Limited during the UPSI period (October 14, 2009 to October 27, 2009 14:07 hours) in contravention of regulations 3(i), 3(ii) and 3A of the PIT Regulations read with section 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act, and are liable to penalties under section 15G of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 60 to as ‘PIT Regulations’) read with section 12A (d) and (e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’) and Clauses 3.2-2, 3.2-5, 3.3-1 & 4.2 of Model Code of Conduct contained in Schedule I of Part A under regulation 12(1) of the PIT Regulations.
Page 3 of 60 reimbursements of ` 900/- and ` 612/- towards payments made by him through his personal credit cards for Kanchan's filing fees with Registrar of Companies. The Noticee No. 1 also vide his letter dated November 03, 2014 (Annexure III of SCN) had replied on similar lines and confirmed his involvement of filing with Registrar of Companies on behalf of Noticee No. 3. The Noticee No. 1 had acknowledged that the directors of the Noticee No. 3 were personally known to him and was reimbursed with the said amount.
Page 4 of 60 account of the publication of quarterly financial results pertaining to the quarter ended September 2009. Along with said letter, the JPL had provided a list of its employees who were intimated about the said window closure period and the Noticee No. 1. That the Noticee No. 1 had purchased a total of 6,500 shares (i.e.1,000 shares on October 23, 2009, 500 shares October 26, 2009, 4000 shares on October 27, 2009 & 1,000 shares on October 28, 2009) and sold 500 shares on October 26, 2009 during the window closure period, which allegedly was in violation of Clauses 3.2.1, 3.2.2 & 3.2.5 of the Model Code of Conduct contained in Schedule I of Part A of regulation 12(1) of PIT Regulations (read with regulation 12 of PIT Regulations, 2015). The Noticee No. 1 in his reply vide letter dated November 03, 2014 (annexure III above) had acknowledged of having traded during the said trading window closure period.
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/JP/225-227/2017. 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.