9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding any illegal profits which might have been earned by a person as a result of such violation or any loss which might have been caused to the innocent investors directly due to such violation. Similarly, penalty of ₹ 5 lac each on the 5 promoters is justified and not unreasonable considering the nature of violation and maximum penalty of ₹ 1 crore imposable under law on each of them. Appellants in Appeal No. 167 of 2014, and Appeal No. 170 of 2014, namely, Mr. P V Ravi Kumar and P Leela Madhuri Devi are husband and wife and they undertook sale and purchase of 4,51,750 shares between themselves. None of them made any disclosure as required by Regulation 13(1) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations as also under Regulation 7( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 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 No. 169 of 2014 (Ms. Lakshmi Rajan), Appeal No. 172 of 2014 (Ms. Ramana Bharati), Appeal No. 168 of 2014 (Mr. Ramana Boina Shankar) and Appeal No. 171 of 2014 (Mr. Sreeram V. Mangalapalli), who are all promoters of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding 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 case, as advance by Shri Vinay Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants is that the violations in question have occurred due to total ignorance of law and this fact has been admitted before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 10 lac against maximum penalty of ₹ 2 crore prescribed by Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 i.e., 1 crore for each violation understandably ₹ 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 SEBI is highly, and rather shockingly, disproportionate to the gravity, nature and extent of the violation involved in a given case, including any illegal profits which might ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
