sebi:SO/AB/EFD2/2022-23/6962

SEBI · SEBI · 2023-02-10 · Ashwani Bhatia, Whole Time Member; Ananth Narayan G., Whole Time Member

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Settlement of enforcement proceedings qua the Applicant on payment of ₹5,77,500

Provisions invoked

• s. 19
• s. 15J

Regulations

• Reg. 25
• Reg. 28
• Reg. 23
• Reg. 29(2)

Parties

• Anshul Nitin Mehta

Holding

SEBI settled the potential enforcement proceedings against the Applicant (Anshul Nitin Mehta) for delayed disclosure of a change in shareholding under Regulations 29(2) and 29(3) of the SAST Regulations, 2011, upon payment of ₹5,77,500.

Full text

2 Mehta received 10,000 shares (4.165%) respectively. Pursuant to the said inter-se transfer of shares, the shareholding of Nitin K. Mehta (HUF) became nil in the Target Company. Since the change in shareholding of Nitin K. Mehta (HUF) was more than 2% of the total shareholding in the Target Company, the same was also required to be disclosed within 2 days of the transaction i.e. on April 24, 2021 in accordance with Regulations 29(2) and 29(3) of the SAST Regulations, 2011. However, the disclosures were made only on May 03, 2021 with a delay of 9 days. At the time of the aforesaid disclosure, Nitin K. Mehta (HUF), Mr. Nitin K. Mehta, Ms. Bharati N. Mehta were part of the promoter group along with Mr. Anshul Nitin Mehta (Applicant). Since the promoters are deemed persons acting in concert (PACs) they were jointly and severally responsible for making the disclosures. Therefore, the Applicant is also responsible for the aforesaid delayed disclosure under Regulation 29(2) and 29(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011.

3 i. this Order disposes of the proceedings that may be initiated for the said violations as mentioned above, in respect of the Applicant; ii. SEBI shall not initiate any enforcement action against the Applicant for the said violations, and iii. passing of this Order is however without prejudice to the right of SEBI under Regulation 28 of the Settlement Regulations to initiate appropriate actions against the Applicant, if SEBI finds that: (a) any representation made by the Applicant in the present settlement proceedings is subsequently found to be untrue; (b) the Applicant has breached any of the clauses/ conditions of undertakings/ waivers filed during the present settlement proceedings; and (c) there was a discrepancy while arriving at the settlement terms.

4

Source: SecMarx — sebi:SO/AB/EFD2/2022-23/6962. 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.