|
Advanced Search Options
SEBI - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 161 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2019 (9) TMI 1314 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Offer price sought to be paid to the public shareholders calculated erroneously and contrary to the Takeover Regulations, 2011 - definition of “frequently traded shares” - whether the amended definition of Regulation 2(1)(j) would be applicable or the old definition would be applicable has to be considered and decided by some authority? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, we do not find as to how the offer price of ₹ 55.22 was arrived at by the merchant banker as approved by SEBI. Further, the question that the offer price should be considered as on the date the public announcement of the offer was made i.e. on November 17, 2017 or on the date when the Merger Agreement on May 24, 2016 was made is also required to be considered. Since, we find that the authority has not considered these aspects it will not be appropriate f....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 799 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Non furnishing the information pursuant to the summons - Violation of Section 11C(3) read with Section 11(2)(i) of SEBI Act, 1992 - penalty under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act, 1992 - HELD THAT:- We find that admittedly the information sought by summons dated December 9, 2014 was eventually supplied after more than one and half years on February 17, 2016 in adjudication proceedings. Prior to that such information was not supplied. Information is required to be furnished to the investigating authority. If information is not furnished, it would hamper the investigation which was precisely being done in the instant case. The alleged irregularities in the trading in the scrips of the appellant Company could not be investigated on account of non-furnishing of the information. Such non-furnishing of the information hampered the investigation a....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 592 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Legality and veracity of the order passed by the Whole Time Member (‘WTM’) of SEBI under Sections 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 which empowers SEBI to issue directions in the nature of remedies in the interest of the securities market and investors in securities - whether SEBI as a market regulator could be said to have jurisdiction to pass any of the directions as contained in the SCN? HELD THAT:- The show cause notice was issued on February 14, 2009 and August 26, 2009. The impugned order was passed on January 10, 2018. It took SEBI nine long years to complete the proceedings and the fault lay entirely on SEBI. The request of the appellants to cross examine certain individuals whose statements were relied upon by SEBI was rejected. This Tribunal on June 1, 2011 allowed the appeal and dire....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 591 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Annulment of a trade - whether the respondent-NSE Clearing Ltd. being a recognized clearing corporation is akin to a recognized stock exchange or not? - application for redressal of their grievances before SEBI - HELD THAT:- An order of the recognized stock exchange is appealable under Section 23L of the Act. Some of the duties and functions of a recognized stock exchange has been transferred to a clearing corporation namely, NSE Clearing Ltd. This clearing corporation has been recognized under Section 4 read with Section 8-A(4) which provision is to recognize a stock exchange. Thus if an order of a recognized stock exchange is appealable under Section 23L, the functions and duties of a recognized stock exchange which have been transferred to a clearing corporation would also be appealable under Section 23L. A clearing corporation cannot ....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 246 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Manipulative transactions - artificial trades - violation of SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations - penalty imposed - HELD THAT:- Volume of trading, percentage of the market share traded by the appellants, timing of trades etc. are so glaring to ignore the manipulative nature of transactions concerned. The appellant and another Noticee No. 3 were the major traders on the market wherein substantial trades matched between them and sizable quantity of self-trades also happened. Though, the appellant had traded in some other time slot as well in moderate quantity as contended, substantive volume of trade was carried out during the closing half an hour of trading clearly demonstrate that the objective was in manipulating the volume and prices though the rise in prices happened to be moderate (1.21%). In any case, volume manipulation is also a market....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1474 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Violation of SEBI (Listing and Disclosures Requirements) Regulations, 2015 - inordinate delay the initiation of proceedings by issuance of the show cause notice which culminated into a penalty order - Directors sold the shares during investigation period proposal for change in management of the company was moved through postal ballot for approval of members on July 22, 2010 but no corporate announcement was made to the Exchange regarding the Board Meeting - HELD THAT:- There has been an inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in initiating proceedings against the appellants for alleged violations. Much water has flown since the alleged violations and at this belated stage the appellants cannot be penalized. It is alleged that disclosure under PIT Regulations was not made but similar disclosure was made by the appellant under SAST R....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1441 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Public issue of securities without complying with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 - Liability of director - WTM has held that the Company has violated provisions of Section 73(2) of the Companies Act and has therefore in the same breadth has booked all the Directors to be responsible for the day today affairs of the Company - HELD THAT:- This approach as stated earlier was wholly incorrect. Section 73(2) of the Companies Act makes it apparently clear that if in the first instance it was the Company which was liable to repay the monies received from the investors and if the Company failed to repay the amount then the amount would be recovered jointly and severally from every Director of the Company as an officer in default. Therefore, where the Company is the offender vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automat....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1143 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Running a Collective investment scheme [CIS] without obtaining the certificate of registration - order of refund of the monies collected illegally under the CIS Scheme - direction of WTM directing refund of the monies collected under the CIS - appellant seeking to circulate the information memorandum under Regulation 73 to its investors - HELD THAT:- Regulation 73 is not applicable in the instant case in as much as it was not an existing scheme as on the date of incorporation of the Regulations which came into effect on January 25, 1995. The appellant’s CIS scheme came into effect much after 2005. In SEBI vs. Gaurav Varshney and Ors. . [2016 (7) TMI 642 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that an existing collective investment scheme within the meaning of Section 12(1B) as also within the meaning of collective investment regulat....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 589 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Disclosure by company to stock exchanges - consequences of non disclosures - Violation of Section 23A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (“SCRA”) - violation of Section 23E of the SCRA for failure to comply with Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement - penalties under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 as well as under Section 23A(a) and Section 23E of the SCRA for violation of Regulation 13(6) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations read with Clauses 2.1 and 7.0(ii) of Schedule II for Code of Corporate Disclosure Practices for Prevention of Insider Trading specified in Schedule II read with Regulation 12(2) of PIT Regulations as well as violation of Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement - HELD THAT:- Guidance Note indicates that the listed company is required to consider the impact of such disclosure o....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 1386 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Illegal transfer of securities - clearing the trades of other parties - HELD THAT:- While the matter was being heard, we directed the learned counsel appearing for SEBI to seek necessary instructions as to how the appellants are to be protected, if they are found to be genuine investors. When the matter was again taken up after lunch a submission was made by the learned senior counsel that they need further time to seek complete instructions in the matter and requested that the matter may be taken up tomorrow. We adjourn the matter today and the same would be taken up tomorrow i.e. on June 26, 2019 as the first case at 10.30 a.m. We make it clear that the complete instructions be obtained from SEBI, namely, as to how the appellants and other concerned entities would be protected under the SEBI Act if they are found to be genuine investors at the end of the day.
- 2019 (6) TMI 1030 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Ex-parte ad-interim order - Appellant has been prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities, directly or indirectly - seeing vacation of the ex-parte order - HELD THAT:- When an ex-parte interim order is passed and a party approaches the authority for vacation of the ex-parte order, the authority is required to act prudently especially when the party approaches the authority immediately for its vacation which in the instant case was done within three days from the passing of the exparte order. The appellant filed its reply as early as on November 3, 2017. Ex-parte interim order continued till the confirmatory order was passed on October 30, 2018. In our opinion, apart from the delay in disposal of the matter, the ex-parte order was confirmed mechanically without any application of mind and without considering the relevant docu....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 968 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Sham loan transaction - violation of the SEBI laws - whether the loan agreement, in fact, wrested control of NDTV to VCPL? - Whether call option gives an unfettered right of controlling the company without exercising the right of call option? - HELD THAT:- Upon the interpretation of the loan agreement at this stage, we are of the opinion that these agreements have remained in existence for the past 10 years. The loan agreements were executed in the year 2009 and 2010. Whether there was a violation of the SEBI laws including the PFUTP Regulations are all required to be considered. At this stage, prime-facie, we are of the opinion that a listed company which is managed by the appellants holding more than 61% of the total shares cannot remain headless. The impugned order has been passed restraining the appellants, Dr. Prannoy Roy and Ms. Rad....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 843 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Annulment of certain trades executed in NIFTY Options Contract - order of the Independent Oversight Committee of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited challenged - HELD THAT:- All trading members who were doing the trades at the relevant time, therefore, were expected to be aware of the possibility of prices moving within these ranges. We are also told that along with the best five prices shown on the trading screen the quantities on offer are also available against those best prices. So traders wanting to trade in large quantities had to be conscious of the possibility of matching their trades at prices substantially varying from the five best prices shown on the screen. It is not for this Tribunal to get into the issue of how prices can vary suddenly from ₹ 100 to ₹ 10 or even ₹ 1 within a fraction of a second e....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 640 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Failure to make disclosures under Regulations 13(3), 13(4A) read with 13(5) of SEBI 'PIT Regulations' and ‘SAST Regulations’ - appellant sold 6,00,000 shares without requisite disclosures - as contented the physical share certificates had been lost or misplaced and were not traceable - penalty imposed - HELD THAT:- We find that the consistent stand of the appellant was that he had never sold the shares and that the physical shares were misplaced or lost and were not traceable. In order to verify this aspect the Registrar Transfer Agent was called who produced the share transfer forms as well as the original certificates which showed the signatures of the appellant. The signatures of the appellant matched with the specimen signatures kept with the Company. The contention of the appellant that the expert opinion provided....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 1807 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Interpretation of Statute - Whether Section 14 and 238 of IBC 2016 have an overriding effect on the provision of Section 28 of SEBI Act? - HELD THAT:- Appellant states that he has no instructions to pursue the matter and submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw his Vakalatnama. Permission granted. The learned counsel is permitted to withdraw the Vakalatnama. No one appears to press this appeal. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2019 (5) TMI 1762 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Violation of Takeover Regulations - sale of the shares of the target Company exceeded two percent of the share capital of the target Company and target Company failed to make the disclosure to the stock exchange as contemplated under Regulation 7(1A) of the Takeover Regulations - inter-se transfer of shares from Appellant no.6 for violating Regulation 3(3) read with Regulation 3(4) - HELD THAT:- Sale made by the appellants which aggregated two percent or more of the share capital of the target Company was required to be disclosed by the acquirer/appellants of the target Company within two days under Regulation 7(1A). Thus, for non-disclosure of the sale of shares the appellants have violated the provisions of Regulation 7(1A). Appellants cannot be faulted and penalised on this score at this stage. They have a decision in their favour in t....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 1685 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Failure to close the trading window during Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) and for 24 hours beyond the UPSI is made public - information shared only on a “need to know” basis - Violation of the Model Code - penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992 for violating Clauses 3.2.1 and 3.2.3(f) of Model Code of Conduct for Prevention of Insider Trading for listed companies (“Model Code”) read with Regulation 12(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 - Whether the imposition of penalty is the ultimate aim under Section 11 of the SEBI Act? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, in January 2010, Abbott approached the Chairman of PEL with an offer to acquire the domestic healthcare business of PEL. We find that due dilige....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 1672 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Annulment of a “deal” - appellant is a clearing member empanelled with NSE Clearing Limited - HELD THAT:- Clearing Member can apply for annulment of a “deal”. In our opinion such deal mentioned in Clause V will also include trades done on the Exchange platform. The relevant authority to decide the annulment of the deal would be the Board of Directors of National Securities Clearing Corporation Limited (now, NCL) and SEBI. The contention of SEBI in the impugned order that it is not within its purview to consider the request for annulment of trades is erroneous. SEBI in exercise of powers u/s 11, 11B of SEBI Act, 1992 read with 12A of the SCRA, 1956 has wide powers to consider a complaint with regard to annulment of the trades. We find that since bye-laws have been framed by NCL in exercise of the powers conferred un....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 1470 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Illegal recovery of fee by the SEBI - seeking refund of the principal amount and also interest accrued on it - as urged that the deposit was made by the appellant under protest and since the appellant had succeeded in his claim the principal amount was liable to be refunded alongwith interest - appellant did not claim the relief of interest while seeking the refund of fee liability - HELD THAT:- The appellant before the Tribunal had prayed for refund of fee liability. No refund for interest was claimed. The appellant did not claim the relief of interest even before the Supreme Court. In the second round of litigation, the appellant cannot now claim the relief of interest. The claim of interest flows from the same cause of action, namely, the refund of fee liability. In view of the aforesaid, since the appellant did not claim the relief of....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 1173 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Revision of offer price for acquiring 26 percent of the shares of the target Company - SEBI resorted to the provisions of Regulation 8(16) of the SAST Regulations and appointed M/s. Haribhakti and Company LLP (referred to hereinafter as ‘Haribhakti’) as Chartered Accountant for computation of fair price of the target company - HELD THAT:- Considering the report of the two valuers submitted by the appellant Tenneco Inc. alongwith the draft letter, respondent SEBI took the course of appointing an independent Chartered Accountant Haribhakti. On the basis of this third valuation report in its direction/observation has revised the offer price to ₹ 608.46/-. The record of SEBI as produced before us would show that after communicating these observations the appellant sought the material from respondent SEBI on the basis of whic....... + More
|
