9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time stipulated under those regulations. In the present case, violation under regulation 7(1A) read with regulation 7(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 relates to the sale transaction that took place on April 30, 2004. As against the obligation to make disclosure on May 2, 2004 under regulation 7(1A) read with regulation 7(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997, admittedly, disclosure has been made on January 2, 2013 i.e., after delay of 3167 days. Similarly, as per regulation 8(1) read with regulation 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 appellant holding more than 15% shares of the target company was obliged to make yearly disclosure to the company within the period specified therein. Admittedly, during the period 2002 to 2011 appellant had failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of regulation 30(2) read with regulation 30(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 ( SAST Regulations, 2011 for short) is the question raised in this appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant fairly stated that though the appellant has violated the provisions of SAST Regulations, 1997/SAST Regulations, 2011, in the facts of present case, lenient view ought to have been taken, because, firstly, at the relevant time dealings in scrip of Tumus Electric Corporation Limited were suspended and, non disclosure did not make any difference to the investors. Secondly no loss is caused to any investor on account of non disclosure and hence, penalty imposed upon the appellant be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosures and disclosures were made belatedly on January 2, 2013 for all the years from 2002 to 2011. Since the delay in making disclosures under regulation 8(1) read with regulation 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997, ranged from 3909 days to 622 days (see para 22 of the impugned order), penalty imposable under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, 1992 for the period 2002 to 2011 would be more than rupees one core, but the AO after considering all mitigating factors has imposed penalty of ₹ 13 lacs for all the years which cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or perverse. 5. Similarly, regulation 30(2) read with regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 requires yearly disclosure to be made by promoters and persons acting in concert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
