sebi:WTM/PS/19/CFD/MAY/2016
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Interim order dated June 04, 2013 confirmed against the Company, its directors, promoters and promoter group.
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 21
- s. 12A
Parties
- Swastik Surfactants Limited
- Mr. Ravi Bhushan Verma
- Mr. Jagesh Kumar Gupta
- Mr. Sushil Kumar
Holding
The Company failed to maintain the minimum public shareholding of 25% as mandated under rule 19A of the SCRR and Clause 40A of the Listing Agreement read with section 21 of the SCRA, and the interim order dated June 04, 2013 is confirmed against the Company, its directors, promoters and promoter group.
Full text
Page 2 of 3 informed the Company regarding the personal hearing fixed on July 03, 2015. However, there was no response to the communication nor the Company appeared on the said date of hearing.
Page 3 of 3 6. Considering the above observations, it is clear that the Company has not complied with the MPS requirements till date in breach of rule 19A of the SCRR and Clause 40 A of the Listing Agreement read with section 21 of the SCRA, and such non-compliance being continuous in nature, it becomes necessary for SEBI, to confirm the directions issued vide the
4. SEBI, vide letters dated October 01, 2015, again sought to serve the interim order on the Company and its directors, Mr. Ravi Bhushan Verma, Mr. Jagesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Sushil Kumar. However, this letter was served on only Mr. Jagesh Kumar Gupta. However, he did not submit any response. As the interim order could not be served on the Company and two of its directors, SEBI made a public notice in newspapers (Times of India, Ahmedabad dated February 23, 2016 and in Sandesh (all editions in Gujarat) dated March 06, 2016) regarding the proceedings initiated vide the interim order. The public notices informed the Company that it can collect the interim order from the offices of SEBI and may also appear in the personal hearing that was scheduled on March 29, 2016. Despite these public notices, neither the Company nor its directors/promoters appeared in the said personal hearing. I, accordingly find that it would be futile to afford further opportunities to the noticees and therefore proceed to consider the case on merits on the basis of material on record. It is also noted that vide order dated July 17, 2012 (in Case No. 208/1988), the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had deregistered the Company on the grounds that the Company has permanently lost its „industrial character‟ and also for „non- prosecution‟.
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/19/CFD/MAY/2016. 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.