9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate For The Respndent : Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Pratham V. Masurekar, Advocate Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral) 1. Three appellants namely, Virat Shah, Alok Shah and Rajan Shah, have filed this appeal to challenge adjudication order dated December 27, 2013 passed by Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for short), whereby co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have taken a lenient view and ought not to have imposed heavy penalty of Rs. 5 lac, especially when delay was marginal and that there was no mala fide intention. Counsel for appellants further submitted that due to delay in making disclosures, neither the appellants have made any unfair gain nor any loss is caused to any investors due to non-disclosure. Moreover, shares of the company were suspend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Similarly, in respect of second transaction dated September 30, 2012 involving acquisition of 5,39,700 shares of the company (10.77%), due date for compliance was October 3, 2012, but was complied on October 9, 2012 i.e., after delay of six days. 6. Since default was repetitive in nature and delay in respect of second transaction being more than the delay in the first transaction it is eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability to make disclosure was joint and several, after considering all mitigating factors, AO has imposed composite penalty of Rs. 5 lac as against penalty of Rs. 8 lac imposable on appellants, which cannot be said to be harsh or unreasonable, especially when the default is repetitive in nature and appellants had acquired shares with a view to acquire control over the management of the company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
