9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel on both sides further state that the facts in these three cases being almost identical, decision in any one Appeal would apply to the remaining two Appeals. 2. Appellants in these appeals are aggrieved by the respective orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI ('AO' for short) whereby penalty of Rs. 7 lac is imposed on each appellant under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('SEBI Act' for short), for violating Regulation 8(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 ('SAST Regulations, 1997' for short) during the years 1998 to 2011. 3. Counsel for the appellants fairly states that each of the appellants had failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the exorbitant penalty imposed on each appellant is unsustainable. 4. Counsel for SEBI on the other hand submitted that the impugned order passed by the AO in the respective appeals is based on Larger Bench decisions of this Tribunal in case of Mrs. Komal Nahata vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 5 of 2014 decided on January 27, 2014), Hybrid Financial Services Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 119 of 2014 decided on June 12, 2014) and Gaylord Commercial Company Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 62 of 2014 decided on April 10, 2014) and hence there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 5. First contention of the appellants is that the Delhi / U. P. Stock Exchanges on which the shares of the appellant companies were listed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by counsel for appellants on the decision of this Tribunal in case of Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. (supra) is also misplaced, because, in para 6 of that decision it is specifically recorded that the appellant therein had made disclosures in the past, whereas in these three cases, it is admitted that no disclosures were made. Hence decision of this Tribunal in case of Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts and has no relevance to the facts of present case. 7. Second contention of the appellants is that they had filed suo moto consent applications before SEBI. Filing of suo moto consent applications do not enhance their case, because, what was required under Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997 is to make year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 8(3) for the year 1998 to 2011. Calculated at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per day for each year subject to a maximum of Rs. 1 crore per year, penalty for each year from 1998 till 2011 shall be Rs. 1 crore per year. However, after taking into consideration all mitigating factors, the AO has imposed composite penalty of Rs. 7 lac on each appellant which cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, decision of AO in imposing penalty by following various decisions of this Tribunal cannot be faulted. Accordingly, all the three appeals are liable to be dismissed. 11. At this stage, counsel for the appellants orally requests that two months time be granted to the appellants to pay the amount of penalty of Rs. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
