Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 901 - AT - Companies LawPenalty under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 - Violation of Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of the SAST Regulations, 1997 - Obligation to make disclosures under SAST Regulations, 1997 & listing agreement are independent to each other - Held that:- First contention of the appellant that since disclosures were available in public domain in view of declaration made under Clause 35 of the listing agreement during the period 2001-2008 no penalty ought to have been levied is without any merit because obligation to make disclosures under Clause 35 of the listing agreement is on the company, whereas, obligation to make disclosures under Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 is on a person holding more than 15% shares of a company. Therefore, obligation to make disclosures under Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 is independent of the obligation to make disclosure under Clause 35 of the listing agreement. Second argument of the appellant to the effect that there was no disproportionate gain or unfair advantage derived by the appellants or loss caused to the investors as a result of failure on part of the appellant to make disclosures and hence penalty ought not to have been levied is also without any merit because obligation to make disclosure under Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 is not restricted to cases where there is disproportionate gain or unfair advantage and where loss is caused to the investors as a result of failure to make disclosures. Third contention of the appellant that since the shareholding of the appellants had remained unaltered for all the years in question and therefore, AO ought to have taken a lenient view is also without any merit. Plain reading of Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 makes it clear that the obligation to make disclosure regarding the number and percentage of shares or voting rights is irrespective of there being any change in the shareholding or not. There can be not dispute that the AO has taken into consideration the above facts while determining the quantum of penalty and accordingly, as against penalty of ₹ 1 crore imposable for each year, has imposed penalty which is less than ₹ 1 lac per year. Argument of the appellants that the failure to comply with Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 was a mere technical default and that the AO has not considered the provisions of Section 15J in the proper perspective does not merit consideration in view of the fact that the penalty imposed is less than ₹ 1 lac per day as against the penalty of ₹ 1 crore imposable for each of the years in question. - Decided against the appellants.
|