sebi:SO/SBM/EAD-1/02/2019
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Settlement order disposing of adjudication proceedings upon remittance of settlement amount of Rs. 5,06,813/-
Regulations
- Reg. 17
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 29
- Reg. 15(1)
- Reg. 29(3)
- Reg. 29(1)
- Reg. 3(1)
Parties
- Mr. Vikas Gupta
Holding
The adjudication proceedings against Mr. Vikas Gupta for alleged violations of Regulation 29(1) read with Regulation 29(3) of SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(1) of PIT Regulations are settled and disposed of upon remittance of Rs. 5,06,813/- without admitting or denying the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Full text
Page 1 of 5 BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA SETTLEMENT ORDER (Application No. 3538/2018) On the application submitted by Mr Vikas Gupta (PAN: AGXPG9036H) Settlement Order No: SO/SBM/EAD-1/02/2019
Page 2 of 5 purchase of shares. The total share capital of the Company as on June 2014 was 50,01,700 shares. b. Based on a reference received from BSE regarding alleged non- disclosure by Mr. Vikas Gupta about decrease in his shareholding in the Company during the period July 04, 2014 to August 11, 2014, SEBI conducted an examination into the trading/dealings in the scrip of ALFL during the period January 01, 2013 to October 31, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘relevant period’/ ‘examination Period’). c. Further, analysis of the trading data during the examination period showed that the applicant had purchased 2,82,000 shares of ALFL during November 2013 and became a shareholder in the company holding 5.64% of the total shares of the company. The same was also observed from the shareholding pattern of the Company that was submitted to the BSE for the period ended March 2014. d. It is observed that applicant who was already holding 1, 70,199 shares of ALFL had purchased 87,352 shares of the company on November 20, 2013 and therefore, the shareholding of the applicant in the company changed from 3.40% to 5.15% i.e. exceeded the threshold limit of 5% of the total shareholding of the Company as on November 20, 2013. Therefore, in terms of Regulation 29 (1) read with Regulation 29 (3) of SAST Regulations, applicant was under an obligation to make the necessary disclosure for the above said change in his shareholding to the Company and to the BSE within 2 working days of the chang
Page 3 of 5 applicant, by failing to make the disclosures to the stock exchange and to the company, has violated the provisions of Regulation 29(1) read with Regulation 29(3) of SAST Regulations. e. Similarly, in terms of the requirement prescribed under Regulation 13(1) of PIT Regulations, applicant was under an obligation to make the necessary disclosure for the above said change in his shareholding to the Company within 2 working days of the change in his shareholding i.e. within two working days from November 20, 2013. It is alleged that the applicant has failed to make the requisite disclosure under Regulation 13(1) of PIT Regulations, to the company. Therefore, it is alleged that applicant, by failing to make the disclosures to the company, has violated the provisions of Regulation 13(1) of 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:SO/SBM/EAD-1/02/2019. 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.