sebi:VSS/AO-05/2008
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Monetary penalty of Rs.1,00,000 imposed jointly and severally for violation of Regulation 3(3) of SAST Regulations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 3(4)
- Reg. 3(3)
Parties
- Anand Arya
- Indu Arya
- Blue Blends Finance Ltd
Holding
The Noticees violated Regulation 3(3) of SAST Regulations by failing to notify BSE at least 4 working days in advance of inter se promoter acquisitions of 44.22% voting capital on March 27, 2006 and March 31, 2006, and a monetary penalty of Rs.1,00,000 jointly and severally was imposed under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 7 In respect of acquisitions under clauses (e), (h) and (i) of sub-regulation (1), the stock exchanges where the shares of the company are listed shall, for information of the public, be notified of the details of the proposed transactions at least 4 working days in advance of the date of proposed acquisition, in case of acquisition exceeding 5 per cent of the voting share capital of the company.
Page 3 of 7 effect from 31st March, 2001, it has been declared so by the Hon’ble Board for Industrial And Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 vide their order dated February 16, 2006. c. The acquisition of shares by way of inter se transfer of shares amongst the promoters exceeding 5% of the voting share capital of the PSL took place on March 27, 2006 and March 31, 2006. The failure to notify the details of the proposed transactions at least 4 working days in advance of the respective dates of proposed acquisitions was due to inadvertence and sheer oversight. However, disclosure of acquisition of shares to BSE on March 27, 2006 and March 31, 2006, i.e., on the days of acquisition, was made in terms of regulations 7(1) and 7(3) of SAST Regulations. d. Mr. Anand Arya, promoter and one of the Noticees, had, on April 12, 2006, in due compliance with Regulation 3(4) of SAST Regulations submitted to SEBI a report on the said transactions along with supporting documents and a fee of Rupees ten thousand in terms of SAST Regulations. e. PSL is listed on BSE. The trading in the securities of the company was suspended by BSE with effect from September 10, 2001 and continues to remain suspended till date. The application of PSL for revocation for suspension of trading in its securities is pending with BSE. Since dealing in the securities of the company remains suspended by BSE, no trading in the securities of th
Page 4 of 7 CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS 10. I have carefully perused the written and oral submissions of the Noticees and the documents available on record. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are : a. Whether the provisions of 3(3) were attracted in the instant case? b. Whether the provisions of 3(3) have been complied with? c. Whether the non-compliance attracts monetary penalty under section 15A(b) SEBI Act ? d. What would be the monetary penalty that can be imposed taking into consideration the factors mentioned in section 15J of SEBI Act?
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:VSS/AO-05/2008. 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.