sebi:SO/AN/EFD2/2023-24/7166

SEBI · SEBI · 2023-07-19 · Panel of Whole Time Members (Amarjeet Singh and Ananth Narayan G.)

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

Facts / Headnote

settled

Provisions invoked

• s. 19
• s. 15J

Regulations

• Reg. 25
• Reg. 28
• Reg. 23
• Reg. 30(3)
• Reg. 30

Holding

Any proceedings that may be initiated for the delayed disclosures under Regulation 30(2) read with Regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 for FYs ending 2015 and 2016 are settled in respect of the Applicant upon payment of Rs 3,00,000, and SEBI shall not initiate any enforcement action for the said violations.

Full text

2 2.3 Details of delay in making of the disclosures are given below: Alleged violation Due date Actual date No. of days of delay Regulation 30 (2) read with Regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 for the financial year ending 2015. April 13, 2015 February 01, 2023 2851 Regulation 30 (2) read with Regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 for the financial year ending 2016. April 12, 2016 February 01, 2023 2486

3 the remittance of the aforesaid settlement amount on November 23, 2023 and SEBI has confirmed credit of the same. 6. On the basis of the facts stated above, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15JB read with Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and in terms of Regulation 23 of the Settlement Regulations, it is hereby ordered that any proceedings that may be initiated for the violations as mentioned at paragraph 1 above, are settled in respect of the Applicant on the following terms: i. SEBI shall not initiate any enforcement action against the Applicant for the said violations, and ii. passing of this Order is without prejudice to the right of SEBI under Regulation 28 of the Settlement Regulations to initiate appropriate action 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.

3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Applicant filed the present application for the purpose of settling the proceedings that may be initiated against it for the said delayed compliance.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:SO/AN/EFD2/2023-24/7166. 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.