9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide summons, detailed information was sought from "SFPL" by the investigating authority. Despite duly receiving summons "SFPL" failed to submit complete detailed information as required vide summons, thereby violating the aforesaid charges - oral and written submissions made by the Appellant, the Adjudicating Officer came to the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act - Penalty for partial non-compliance issued by the Investigating Officer is on a higher side – Thus, Penalty reduced it to Rupees Two Lakh – Decided partly in favour of Appellant. - 92 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2013 - JOG SINGH AND A.S. LAMBA, JJ. For the Appellant : Vinay Chauhan and K.C. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the said reference that ten entities were holding substantial shares of "MIL" and the affairs of the ten companies were being looked after by Mr. Amit Raja, Chartered Accountant, who happened to be their auditor. The ITD had found certain documents suggesting manipulation in the share price of "MIL". The reference stated that following ten private limited companies were found to be dummy companies incorporated by "MIL" which had together cornered a large part of the shareholding of "MIL". i. Ambaji Papers Private Limited (Ambaji) ii. Inco Infrastructures Private Limited (Inco) iii. Kanhaiya Mining And Minerals Private Limited (Kanhaiya) iv. Krishnum Investments Private Limited (Krishnum) v. Lakhi Pack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Dangi Group was actively trading in the shares of many companies where there was capital raising exercise through FCCB issue, ADR/GDR issue, QIB/QIP placement, preferential allotment or loans or pledge / revocation of pledge of promoter shares. 4. In view of the above investigation in various scrips and noticing that such operations were possibly continuing in the market to the detriment of the investing public, SEBI passed an ad-interim ex-parte order dated December 2, 2010, issuing directions against, inter alia, Mr. Sanjay Dangi, his associates and promoter entities of 4 companies, i.e. MIL, Hubtown, WCL BIL restraining 10 Dangi entities and 14 Ashika entities from accessing the securities market and further prohibited from buy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Appellant, the Adjudicating Officer came to the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act. This is how a monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) came to be imposed on the Appellant by the aforesaid impugned order dated February 28, 2013. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 6. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission itself and is being disposed by the present order. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have analysed the facts and pleadings in detail. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that "SFPL" has been merged and amal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
