9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrespective of declaration under Regulation 8(2) – When there was no plausible explanation for violation, impugned order was liable to be upheld – Principle of proportionality would come to rescue only when penalty imposed by SEBI was highly disproportionate – Appeal dismissed – Decided against Appellant. - Appeal No. 63 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2014 - J. P. Devadhar, Jog Singh and A. S. Lamba, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Joby Mathew, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Awasthi, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Chirag Balsara, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate Per : Jog Singh (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by five appellants, namely, Mr. Vijay Jain, Ms. Urvashi Jain, Ms. Sunita Jain, Ms. Shivani Jain and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merchant Banker to the letter of offer noticed non-compliance with the Regulations 30(2) / 30(3) of the SAST Regulations, 2011 and as per his advice the promoters of the target company i.e. these five appellants, therefore, made disclosures under the law on November 9, 2012 after a lapse of 147 days. 4. We have perused the provisions of Regulations 30(2) and 30(3) of the SAST Regulations, 2011 which deal with continual disclosures . Regulations 30(2) requires that the promoter of every target company shall together with persons acting in concert with him, disclose their aggregate shareholding and voting rights as of the thirty-first day of March, in such target company in such form as may be specified. Similarly, Regulation 30(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larly, appellants were obliged to make declaration irrespective of the fact that there was trading in shares or not. In these circumstances, particularly when there is no plausible explanation for the violation in question, the impugned order is liable to be upheld. Therefore, a minor penalty of ₹ 3 lac on the appellants cannot be said to be unjustified on the ground of proportionality as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. The principle of proportionality would come to the rescue of an appellant only when the penalty sought to be imposed by SEBI is highly, and rather shockingly, disproportionate to the gravity, nature and extent of the violation involved in a given case, including any illegal profits which might have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
