Kingfisher Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.

SAT-appeal

• Alleged failure to make shareholding/change-in-shareholding disclosures under the PIT Regulations, although corresponding disclosures were allegedly made under the SAST Regulations.
  Appeals allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice. · Impugned proceedings/penalties set aside; appellants could not be penalized after the unreasonable delay.
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022 disposed of by SAT on 31 May 2022; connected miscellaneous applications allowed/ disposed of. The text does not state individual final operative wording beyond setting aside proceedings.
• Alleged failure to make disclosure under PIT Regulation 13 for change in shareholding, though similar disclosure made under SAST Regulations and available on stock exchange.
  Appeals allowed and impugned SEBI orders quashed/set aside on ground of coverage by Yatin Pandya precedent and inordinate delay
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224-233 of 2022 with Misc. Applications 382-389, 436-437 of 2022 decided on 31.05.2022 - allowed
• Alleged failure to make disclosures under PIT Regulations Reg 13 though corresponding SAST disclosure was made and available on stock exchange.
  Appeals allowed and impugned SEBI orders set aside as covered by Yatin Pandya HUF decision and vitiated by inordinate delay
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022 with Misc. Applications 382-389, 436-437 of 2022 decided on 31.05.2022; held covered by Yatin Pandya HUF
• Alleged failure to make disclosure under PIT Regulations Regulation 13 for trades in Oregon Commercial Ltd though SAST disclosure was made
  Appeals allowed and impugned SEBI orders set aside on inordinate delay and Yatin Pandya precedent (operative tail truncated)
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022 with Misc Applications 382-389, 436-437 of 2022 decided on 31.05.2022 - allowed
• Alleged failure to make disclosure under PIT Regulations Reg 13 though corresponding SAST disclosure was on Stock Exchange; penalty proceedings initiated after 12-year delay.
  Appeals allowed following Yatin Pandya HUF precedent; impugned adjudication penalty orders set aside for inordinate delay
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022 with Misc. Appl. Nos. 382-389, 436-437 of 2022 decided on 31.05.2022 - allowed
• Alleged non-disclosure of changes in shareholding under the PIT Regulations in connection with trading in investigated scrips.
  Appeals allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice · Impugned proceedings and penalties were set aside/quashed
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022, decided by SAT on 31 May 2022; appeals allowed.
• Alleged non-compliance with disclosure obligations under the PIT Regulations in relation to trading/shareholding changes in the investigated scrips.
  Appeals were allowed on the basis that the controversy was covered by Yatin Pandya HUF v. SEBI and the show-cause notice was issued after inordinate delay.
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022 disposed of by SAT on 31 May 2022; connected miscellaneous applications Nos. 382 to 389, 436 and 437 of 2022.
• Alleged failure to make disclosure under PIT Regulation 13 though parallel SAST disclosure was made and available on Stock Exchange.
  Appeals allowed as covered by Yatin Pandya HUF decision; impugned SEBI orders set aside on coverage and inordinate delay grounds
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022 with Misc. Applications 382-389, 436-437 of 2022 decided 31.05.2022 - allowed
• Alleged failure to make disclosure under PIT Regulations though corresponding SAST disclosure was made and available on Stock Exchange.
  Appeals allowed and impugned SEBI orders set aside following Yatin Pandya HUF precedent and 12-year delay
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 224 to 233 of 2022 with Misc. Applications 382-389, 436-437 of 2022 decided on 31.05.2022, allowed