9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer. Penalty calculated at the rate of ₹ 1 lac per day, in the present case, exceeds ₹ 1 crore. Thus, as against penalty of ₹ 1 crore imposable under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, 1992, adjudicating officer after considering all mitigating factors has imposed penalty of ₹ 5 lac which cannot be said to be excessively harsh or unreasonable. Argument that requisite particulars of sale in question were available on the website of the Stock Exchange and therefore for failure to make disclosures within the stipulated time penalty ought not to have been imposed, is without any merit, because, obligation to make disclosures within the stipulated time is a mandatory obligation and penalty is imposed for not complying with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort) for violating regulation 13(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 ( PIT Regulations, 1992 for short) and regulation 29(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 ( Takeover Regulations, 2011 for short). 2. Facts relevant for the present appeal are that on 2nd May, 2013 appellant sold 64,770 shares of Parichay Investments Limited ( the target company for convenience) which represented 5.4% of the total shareholding of the target company and therefore under regulation 13(3) of PIT Regulations, 1992 and regulation 29(2) of Takeover Regulations, 2011, appellant was required to make disclosures. As the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advertent error penalty of ₹ 5 lac imposed upon the appellant is unjustified. (b) Failure on part of the appellant to make disclosures was not with a view to take undue advantage in any manner whatsoever and the failure to make disclosures being only technical, unintentional and inadvertent, in the interest of justice penalty imposed against the appellant be quashed and set aside. (c) No loss is caused to any investor on account of delay in making the disclosures and hence imposition of penalty is unjustified. (d) Appellant being a blind person, the adjudicating officer ought to have taken a lenient view and ought not to have imposed penalty upon the appellant. (e) By the impugned transaction, appellant has already suffere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Stock Exchange and therefore for failure to make disclosures within the stipulated time penalty ought not to have been imposed, is without any merit, because, obligation to make disclosures within the stipulated time is a mandatory obligation and penalty is imposed for not complying with the mandatory obligation. Similarly argument that the failure to make disclosures within the stipulated time, was unintentional, technical or inadvertent and that no gain or unfair advantage has accrued to the appellant, is also without any merit, because, all these factors are mitigating factors and these factors do not obliterate the obligation to make disclosures. 9. Contention that the adjudicating officer ought to have sympathetically consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
