9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for violating Regulation 10 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 ("SAST Regulations, 1997" for short) read with Regulation 35 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 ("SAST Regulations, 2011" for short) and by that order appellants are directed to pay the aforesaid penalty jointly and severally within the specified date. 2. In the present case, investigation carried out by SEBI revealed that appellants along with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kothari (now deceased) had acquired 6,83,717 shares of Kwality Credit & Leasing Limited (KCLL for short) during the period from 15th September, 2010 to 21st September, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings) Regulations, 2014, the total indicative amount for such violation is Rs. 25 lacs only. (g) Apart from the aforesaid mitigating factors, in the present case the target company being in loss at the time of acquisition, there being no change in management and control due to such acquisition and the default being not repetitive in nature, the adjudicating officer is not justified in imposing penalty of Rs. 40 lac. 5. We see no merit in the above contentions. 6. In the present case, fact that the appellants acquired shares of KCLL in excess of the limit prescribed under Regulation 10 of SAST Regulations, 1997 is not in dispute. Although appellants had represented to the Adjudicating Officer that they are taking steps to make open offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contended on behalf of appellants that in the facts of the present case penalty of Rs. 40 lac imposed upon appellants deserves to be deleted/reduced substantially. We see no merit in the above contention. Fact that in a given case penalty is reduced cannot be a ground for reducing the penalty in every case, especially in the facts of present case, where the appellants had represented that they are taking steps to comply with the regulation but till date have not complied with that representation and in the present case it is seen that compared to the penalty of Rs. 25 crore imposable under Section 15H, penalty imposed is only Rs. 40 lac. Therefore, in the facts of present case, we do not consider it proper to reduce the penalty based on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
