sebi:SBM-ASR/AO/EAD-3/13-15/2015
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 under Section 15A(b) SEBI Act: Rs 2,50,000 each on Anushikha and Swaran and Rs 1,50,000 on York for SAST and PIT disclosure violations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 29(2)
- Reg. 29(3)
- Reg. 29
- Reg. 201
- Reg. 29(1)
- Reg. 1
Parties
- Anushikha Investments Private Limited
- Swaran Financial Private Limited
- York Financial Services Private Limited
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that Anushikha and Swaran violated Regulation 29(1) read with Regulation 29(3) of SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(1) of PIT Regulations, and York violated Regulation 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(3) read with Regulation 13(5) of PIT Regulations, and imposed monetary penalties under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 16 Regulations”) and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “PIT Regulations”). However, it was observed that the Noticees had failed to make the necessary disclosures in terms of the aforementioned Regulations. The Target Company, which is presently known as Emergent Global Edu and Services Limited, is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as BSE). BSE vide their letter dated June 12, 2013 informed SEBI that the Noticees had not made the necessary disclosures under the relevant provisions of SAST Regulations and PIT Regulations, as aforesaid.
Page 3 of 16 under the provisions of Section 15 A (b) of the SEBI Act for the alleged violations as specified in the respective Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as "SCN") issued to the Noticees. It was alleged in the SCN issued to Anushikha and Swaran that they have violated the provisions of Regulation 29 (1) read with Regulation 29 (3) of the SAST Regulations and Regulation 13 (1) of the PIT Regulations. In the SCN issued to York, it was alleged that York has violated the provisions of Regulation 29 (2) read with Regulation 29 (3) of the SAST Regulations and Regulation 13 (3) read with Regulation 13 (5) of the PIT Regulations. Consequently, the Noticees were liable for penalty under the provisions of Section 15 A (b) of the SEBI Act for the aforementioned violations allegedly committed by them.
Page 4 of 16 of the PIT Regulations. Thus, it was alleged in the SCN that Swaran had failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 29(1) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SAST Regulations along with Regulation 13(1) of the PIT Regulations.
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:SBM-ASR/AO/EAD-3/13-15/2015. 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.