sebi:WTM/PS/03/IVD/ID-2/APRIL/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Show cause notice dated March 13, 2003 disposed of; acquirers held guilty of contravening Regulation 7 of SAST Regulations; no further directions issued as existing orders already prohibit dealing in securities.
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
- s. 11(4)
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 44
- Reg. 10
Parties
- Kartik Parekh
- Classic Credit Limited
- N.H. Securities Limited
- Panther Fincap and Management Services Limited
- Saimangal Investrade Limited
- Triumph Securities Limited
- Triumph International Finance India Limited
- Vidyut Investments Limited
Holding
The acquirers were held guilty of contravening Regulation 7 of the SAST Regulations, while the allegation of violation of Regulation 10 was not dealt with as SAT had set aside that finding and the SAT order was not challenged. No further directions were issued because existing SEBI orders already prohibited the noticees from dealing in securities.
Full text
Page 2 of 5 2. On completion of the investigation, SEBI inter alia issued a common show cause notice dated March 13, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’), under Section 11, 11B and 11(4) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’) and Regulation 44 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SAST Regulations) to all the noticees and Vidyut Investments Limited. The SCN alleged that the noticees and Vidyut Investments Limited, acting in concert had acquired 15% of the paid up capital of the target company making it mandatory for them to make a public announcement to acquire further shares as per the provisions of Regulation 10 of the SAST Regulations. Further, it was alleged that the acquirers while acting in concert have not informed the target company when their acquisition had exceeded 5% of the paid capital of Aftek. The SCN, therefore alleged that the acts of the noticees were in violation of Regulation 7(1), 7(2) and 10 of the SAST Regulations. Accordingly, it called upon the noticees to show cause as to why suitable directions under Sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act should not be issued against them. The proceedings as against Vidyut Investments Limited have already been concluded vide SEBI order dated January 24, 2007. Hence, I am proceeding with the rest of entities.
Page 3 of 5 elapsed from the date of alleged violation by these entities and the matter has already been delayed for long. In view of this, I find no merit in keeping these proceedings in abeyance. Considering this, I am proceeding in the matter of Panther Fincap and Management Services Limited, Saimangal Investrade Limited, Triumph Securities Ltd. and Classic Credit Limited on the basis of material available on record.
Page 4 of 5 Limited, Triumph Securities Ltd. and Classic Credit Limited were directly related to Mr. Ketan Parekh and were being commonly referred to as Ketan Parekh entities as noted in the orders issued by SEBI on December 12, 2003 and March 08, 2004. Further, these noticees were having close association among themselves as these were either having the common directors or the common addresses.
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:WTM/PS/03/IVD/ID-2/APRIL/2011. 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.