sebi:VSS/AO-27/2009
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 2(1)(c)
- Reg. 2(1)
- Reg. 8(2)
- Reg. 6(3)
Parties
- Alok Jain
Holding
The Noticee violated regulation 6(3) of SAST for the year 1997 and regulation 8(2) of SAST for the financial years 1998-2002 and 2004-05, and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act was imposed on him.
Full text
Page 2 of 15 2. Upon examination of the offer document pertaining to the aforesaid open offer, it was alleged that, Mr. Alok Jain (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee”) had failed to comply with regulation 6(3) of SAST for the year 1997 and regulation 8(2) of SAST for the financial years 1998 to 2002 and 2004-05 and consequently, liable for monetary
Page 3 of 15 AR contended that provisions of regulations 6(3) and 8(2) of SAST were not attracted by the Noticee. In support of this contention, written submissions along with supporting documents were submitted by the AR. A summary of the said written submissions is as under:
Page 4 of 15 7. Before moving forward, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of regulations 6(3) and 8(2) of SAST, which reads as under:-
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-27/2009. 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.