9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stipulated period under the PIT and SAST regulations. Non-disclosures within the stipulated period violated the provisions of the aforesaid regulations and, consequently, the penalty became leviable. Thus, to that extent, the order of the AO holding the appellants guilty of violating the provisions of the PIT and SAST Regulations cannot be faulted and is upheld. Considering the factors enumerated under Section 15J of the SEBI Act, we find that there was no disproportionate gain or unfair advantage gained by the appellants as a result of the default nor anything has come on record to indicate that the delayed disclosures resulted in a loss caused to an investor. However, considering the repetitive nature of the default and the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as, Glodyne ). The appellants took loans from banks and financial institutions to fund their business. The said loan was secured by pledging their shareholdings in Glodyne. The appellants also gave a power of attorney to the lenders. According to the appellants, the lenders invoked the pledge and sold their shares without intimation and when the appellants became aware they made the disclosures under the PIT and SAST Regulations though belatedly. 3. After five years, a show cause notice dated February 7, 2017 was issued by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as, AO ) alleging that from January 2, 2012 to April 20, 2013 the appellants failed to make the disclosures within the stipulated period pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having pondered over the matter, we find that on the facts narrated aforesaid the appellants were duty bound to make the necessary disclosures within the stipulated period under the PIT and SAST regulations. Non-disclosures within the stipulated period violated the provisions of the aforesaid regulations and, consequently, the penalty became leviable. Thus, to that extent, the order of the AO holding the appellants guilty of violating the provisions of the PIT and SAST Regulations cannot be faulted and is upheld. 7. However, considering the factors enumerated under Section 15J of the SEBI Act, we find that there was no disproportionate gain or unfair advantage gained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
