9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had undergone inquiry before the SEBI for similar type of violation in the recent past when he had increased his shareholding to the tune of 5.6% of the total shares of RPIL on September 5, 2012. It is, therefore evident that appellant was aware about the requirement of law as regards disclosures on acquiring 2% or more shares of the company. t is also noteworthy that the appellant, on his own showing, could inform the company about the acquisition of shares in question with a request to the company, in turn, to inform the Stock Exchange. This also makes it abundantly clear that the appellant was aware about the requirement of law to make disclosures about acquisition of shares in question at or above 2% to the company as well th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding by directors and officers and substantial shareholders in a listed companies- initial Disclosure 13(3) Any person who holds more than 5% shares or voting rights in any listed company shall disclose to the company in Form C the number of shares or voting rights held and change in shareholding or voting rights, even if such change results in shareholding falling below 5%, if there has been change in such holdings from the last disclosure made under sub-regulation (1) or under this sub-regulation; and such change exceeds 2% of total shareholding or voting rights in the company. 13(5) The disclosure mentioned in sub-regulations (3) and (4) shall be made within two working days of:- (a) The receipts of intimation of allotmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 4, 2013 and June 28, 2013 and in view of non disclosure there was violation of the provisions contained in SAST Regulations, 2011. 3. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated December 16, 2013 was issued by the respondent to the appellant and he filed reply on February 25, 2014. He was also granted an opportunity of personal hearing by the respondent on February 28, 2014 4. The case of the appellant is that he was not aware of the requirement to make necessary disclosures being a mere investor in the company i.e., RPIL. He had, however informed the company on February 23, 2013 about the acquisition of shares with a request to inform the Stock Exchange. The company, however, did not do it and rather provided him with a wrong format in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1 lac only. Therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that it is not a fit case where the Tribunal should interfere even in the matter of quantum of punishment on the ground of proportionality. 6. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the appeal as well as copy of earlier order dated July 23, 2013 by which the appellant was imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lac for violating of somewhat similar provisions of law regarding acquisition of shares of the same company i.e., RPIL. The main contention of the appellant, who has appeared in person before us, is that he was not aware about the requirement of law in making disclosure as a part of SAST Regulations, 2011 and PIT Regulations, 1992. We note that ignora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
