9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay - HELD THAT:- The time line of the events would show that the alleged violation had occurred between March, 2004 to June, 2004. The appellant had disclosed the transaction to the BSE at that time. The show cause notice however was issued in the present case dated 7th November, 2017. The investigation report itself would show that for non availability of the documentary evidences the investigating authority did not recommend taking drastic action to direct making of public announcement. Thus, there was inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings. No escape from the conclusion that the proceedings are required to be quashed. Therefore the appeal is hereby allowed. - Appeal No. 75 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2019 - DR. C.K.G. NA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons acting in concert with him, has acquired, in accordance with the provisions of law, 15 percent or more but less than fifty five per cent (55%) of the shares or voting rights in a company, shall acquire, either by himself or through or with persons acting in concert with him, additional shares or voting rights entitling him to exercise more than 5% of the voting rights, with post acquisition shareholding or voting rights not exceeding fifty five percent, in any financial year ending on 31st March, unless such acquirer makes a public announcement to acquire shares in accordance with the Regulations. 3. Therefore show cause notices were issued to the appellants. Some of the appellants did not answer the show cause notice while some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the respondent SEBI submits that there is no denial of the fact that the appellant violated the provisions of SAST Regulations. The respondent came to know about the violation only when the reference was received from the Income Tax authority as detailed above. Thereafter investigation was conducted and show cause notice was issued. 6. In rejoinder, Dr. S.K. Jain submitted that the disclosure of the acquisition was made regularly with BSE copy of which are filed on record. In the situation, he submitted that the appeal be allowed. 7. Upon hearing both the sides, in our view the appeal deserved to be allowed for the following reasons:- The time line of the events would s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r SAST Regulations the investors became aware of the change in the shareholding. The non-compliance of Regulation 13 if any becomes technical in nature. 7. In Mr. Rakesh Kathotia Ors. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 07 of 2016 decided by this Tribunal on 27.05.2019) proceedings were quashed on account of inordinate delay. The said decision is squarely applicable to the instant case. For facility, the relevant paragraph of the order is extracted hereunder: 23. It is no doubt true that no period of limitation is prescribed in the Act or the Regulations for issuance of a show cause notice or for completion of the adjudication proceedings. The Supreme Court in Government of India vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Others, [AIR (1989) SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
