9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mody, Advocate Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral) 1. Whether the Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for shot) was justified in imposing penalty of Rs. 3 lacs for alleged violation of regulation 7(1A) read with regulation 7(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 ("SAST Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condly no loss is caused to any investor on account of non disclosure and hence, penalty imposed upon the appellant be set aside to the extent as this Tribunal deems it fit and proper. 3. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the AO. Under SAST Regulations, 1997 as also under SAST Regulations, 2011 disclosures are liable to be made within specified days irrespective of the scrip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed penalty of only Rs. 3 lacs which cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 4. 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 make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the end of the financial year. Admittedly, disclosure under regulation 30(2) read with regulation 30(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011 was made on January 2, 2013 which was delayed by 265 days. Though penalty at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per day was leviable for such belated disclosure, AO after taking into consideration all mitigating factors has imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lac which cannot be said to be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
