sebi:SRP/RK/AO-60/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the Noticee for violation of SAST and PIT Regulations disclosure requirements
Provisions invoked
- s. 41(3)
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 87(1)
Regulations
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 2(1)(b)
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 7(2)
Parties
- Noticee (Bank)
Holding
The Noticee violated regulation 7(1) read with regulation 7(2) of the SAST Regulations and regulations 13(1) and 13(3) read with regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations by failing to make required disclosures, and is liable for a monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 3. The undersigned has been appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide order dated October 30, 2009 under section 15 I of the SEBI Act read with rule 3 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalty by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) to inquire into and adjudge under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, the alleged violation/contravention of the provisions of the SAST Regulations and the PIT Regulations, by the Noticee.
Page 3 of 9 Similarly, at the time of retransfer also no amount is shown as consideration for the said shares. The Bank has never shown the shares in question as its ‘investment’. • The required disclosure would be contrary to the factual position of the Bank’s holding of shares as security only and further contrary to the Banks own statements of accounts which are duly audited and filed with the respective statutory authorities. • The Company had made disclosure to the stock exchanges in the distribution schedule in the quarterly reports of our holding in the category of Banks, Financial Institutions, Insurance Companies etc. • The Noticee has also relied on orders of Hon’ble SAT in Kensigton Investment Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No.27, 28, 30 and 31 of 2002 decided on October 11, 2002) and VLS Finance Ltd. vs. AO, SEBI (Appeal No.12 of 2000 decided on October 31, 2000).
Page 4 of 9 rights), to the original holder of the shares on March 23, 2005. The remaining shares continued to be held with the Noticee.
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:SRP/RK/AO-60/2010. 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.