sebi:SD/AO/154/2009
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticee found guilty; penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 imposed for failure to comply with summons under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act, 1992
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 11C(3)
Regulations
- Reg. 7
Parties
- Parasmal Rampuria
Holding
Parasmal Rampuria, Director of G R Magnets Ltd, was held liable for failure to comply with three summons issued by SEBI's Investigating Authority seeking information about GRML's dealings in Zigma Software Ltd, in violation of Sections 11C(3) and 11C(5) of the SEBI Act, 1992. A penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 was imposed under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 shares of ZSL i.e., 8.56% of the paid up capital of ZSL for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 and September 30, 2003. After acquiring 2,66,350 shares of ZSL contributing 1.8% of the voting rights of ZSL during Nov’03, the percentage of holding of M/s. G R Magnets Limited increased to 10.36% comprising of 15, 34, 562 shares as on Dec.31, 2003.
Page 3 of 9 8. Thus SEBI had issued summons to Parasmal Rampuria the Director of GRML, the Noticee herein to appear in person along with the supporting data, however, the same have been not complied with by the Noticee herein, the details of which are as follows: S.no. Date of Summons Date to appear on
Page 4 of 9 however, the Noticee had not appeared though he received the said Notice of Hearing on July 30, 2007. Subsequently, another Notice of Hearing was sent to the Noticee to appear on October 4, 2007 vide Notice dated September 12, 2007, however, the Noticee had sent a letter dated October 4, 2007 requesting for extension of time. In the interest of Natural Justice Principles, another opportunity of hearing was given to the Noticee to appear on July 29, 2009 at SEBI Eastern Regional Office (ERO), L & T Chambers, 3rd Fl, 16, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. However, the Noticee received the notice as the acknowledgment is available for the same but has not turned up at the SEBI ERO. I find that the Noticee received the show cause notice and the summons/letters and Notice of Hearing which were sent to the same address. According to me, such an act by the Noticee amounts to denial and delaying the adjudication proceedings and therefore I am inclined to take a serious note of the same. Further the Noticee even failed and not bothered to submit any kind of reply to the show cause notice which he has received.
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:SD/AO/154/2009. 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.