sebi:VSS/AO-50/2009
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation of Regulations 11(1) and 11(2) of SAST held established; violation of Regulation 7(1A) held not established; monetary penalty imposed under Section 15H(ii) of SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 11(1)
- Reg. 11(2)
Parties
- Noticee (part of Erstwhile Promoters/Acquirers of BSL)
Holding
The Noticee, as part of the Erstwhile Promoters of BSL, violated Regulations 11(1) and 11(2) of SAST but not Regulation 7(1A), and is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000 as its share of the Rs.5,00,000 total penalty under Section 15H(ii) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 15 referred to as (“Erstwhile Promoters/Acquirers”) and individually referred to as “Noticee”), acquired/sold shares/voting rights in the company in violation of the provisions of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “SAST”).
Page 3 of 15 5. The Noticee made submissions vide reply dated February 16, 2009 and requested for a personal hearing in order to substantiate upon the said submissions.
Page 4 of 15 e. Does the non-compliance, if any, attract monetary penalty under section 15H (ii) of SEBI Act? f. If so, 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-50/2009. 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.