9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Kersi Dastoor, Advocate with Mr. Mobin Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per : Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral) This order will dispose of three connected Appeals no. 125 to 127 of 2011 involving identical questions of law and fact. On the basis of the facts as established on the record which are now admitted by the learned authorised representatives of the appellants, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 8, 2007 to July 20, 2007. A meeting of the board of directors of the company was held on July 25, 2007 for which the notice was sent on July 17, 2007. One of the items on the agenda was to consider the issue of bonus shares. Information in this regard was sent to the Bombay Stock Exchange where the scrip of the company is listed. The financial results of the company and the fact that it was cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a paltry sum of ₹ 3.5 lakhs as penalty on Ranjana Kothari and a sum of ₹ 4 lakhs on Ranjeet Kumar Kothari and ₹ 2 lakhs on P. Kashyap Kothari. Section 15G of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter called the 'Act') under which the penalty has been imposed was amended in the year 2002 and the maximum penalty was increased from ₹ 5 lakhs to ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er investors. Law insists that insiders should not trade till non public information comes in the public domain so that there is a level playing field for all traders / investors in the securities market. We are not happy with the paltry sum of penalties imposed on the appellants in these cases. 2. Before concluding, we may observe that the Securities and Exchange Board of India only initiated ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
