9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved in all these 9 appeals, with the consent of parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Penalty of Rs. 10 lac has been imposed on Shri Polsani Ravinder Rao, appellant in Appeal No. 166 of 2014 for violation of Regulation 13(4) read with 13(5) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 ("PIT Regulations, 1992" for short). Shri Polsani Ravinder Rao, happens to be a Promoter, Director and Compliance Officer of the company namely, Arunjoyti Enterprises Limited which is a public limited company and listed on Bombay Stock Exchange and the Calcutta Stock Exchange. 3. Similarly, appellants in Appeal Nos. 173 of 2014, namely, (Mr. ARS Rajan), Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliminary investigation conducted by SEBI, a common show cause notice dated September 12, 2013 was issued to the appellants under rule 4 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 and after conducting inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after considering reply of the appellants in regard the learned Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for short) of SEBI has imposed the above said penalties on the appellants under 15A(b) of Securities and exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act, 1992" for short) by impugned order dated March 28, 2014. 6. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the company i.e., three in one. He has committed violation on two occasions, first in regard to quarter ending March 31, 2011 and second in respect of quarter ending December 31, 2010. On each such occasion, he did not disclose about acquisition and sale of 1 lac shares of the company. Therefore, he has been rightly imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lac against maximum penalty of Rs. 2 crore prescribed by Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 i.e., 1 crore for each violation understandably Rs. 5 lac for each violation. Therefore, this penalty cannot be considered unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The principle of proportionality would come to the rescue of an appellant only when the penalty sought to be imposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
