Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Sincere Packers Ltd. and Others Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai

2015 (7) TMI 258 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

Penalty under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act - Violation of Regulation 8(3) of the SEBI(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations (SAST), 1997 - whether no trading in shares on stock exchange or filing of suo moto consent or no loss occured to any investor due to non disclosure have any impact on penalty amount - Held that:- In case of Comfort Fincap Ltd. vs. SEBI [2015 (6) TMI 791 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI] decided on June 25, 2014) it was contended that during t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AI] , first contention of the appellants that the AO was not justified in imposing penalty for not making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) inspite of there being no trading on account of the Stock Exchanges being non functional, cannot be accepted.

Second contention of the appellants is that they had filed suo moto consent applications before SEBI. Filing of suo moto consent applications do not enhance their case, because, what was required under Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(3). Very same argument was raised in case of Mrs. Komal Nahata [2015 (6) TMI 792 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI] and the said argument was rejected by recording a finding that the mandatory disclosures under the respective regulations framed by the SEBI have to be complied with, irrespective of the fact that the investors have actually suffered on account of non disclosures or not. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal, above argument of the appellants cannot be sustained. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

asonable or excessive. - Decided against the appellants. - Appeal No. 426 of 2014, Appeal No. 427 of 2014, Appeal No. 428 of 2014 - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - J. P. Devadhar, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sunil Humbre, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Bhadang, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral) 1. Counsel on both sides state that since the issues raised in these appeals are covered by the decisions of this Tribunal, all th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

BI Act for short), for violating Regulation 8(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 ( SAST Regulations, 1997 for short) during the years 1998 to 2011. 3. Counsel for the appellants fairly states that each of the appellants had failed to make disclosures under regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997 for the year 1998 to 2011. However, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Gulab Impex Enterprises Lt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the AO was not justified in imposing penalty of ₹ 7 lac on the appellants. b. Suo moto consent applications were filed by each appellant before SEBI seeking settlement of the penalty imposable on account of non disclosure under Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997. Eventhough the said consent applications were rejected by SEBI the month of March 2012, in view of suo moto proposal put up by appellants, the AO is not justified in imposing exorbitant penalty of ₹ 7 lac on each appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he respective appeals is based on Larger Bench decisions of this Tribunal in case of Mrs. Komal Nahata vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 5 of 2014 decided on January 27, 2014), Hybrid Financial Services Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 119 of 2014 decided on June 12, 2014) and Gaylord Commercial Company Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 62 of 2014 decided on April 10, 2014) and hence there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 5. First contention of the appellants is that the Delhi / U. P. S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ck exchange and hence imposition of penalty for not making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) is unjustified. Rejecting that contention it was held that making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) is mandatory and that obligation is not dependant on the actual trading on the stock exchange. In view of the aforesaid Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of Comfort Fincap Ltd. (Supra), first contention of the appellants that the AO was not justified in imposing penalty for not making disclosure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 8(3), then the appellants cannot escape penal liability. 6. Reliance placed by counsel for appellants on the decision of this Tribunal in case of Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. (supra) is also misplaced, because, in para 6 of that decision it is specifically recorded that the appellant therein had made disclosures in the past, whereas in these three cases, it is admitted that no disclosures were made. Hence decision of this Tribunal in case of Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. (supra) is distinguish .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

closures year after year from 1998, appellants cannot escape penal liability merely because in the year 2011 they had filed suo moto consent applications seeking consent order. Admittedly, the said consent applications have been rejected by SEBI. 8. Third contention of the appellants is that no loss has occurred to any investor due to non disclosure under Regulation 8(3). Very same argument was raised in case of Mrs. Komal Nahata (supra) and the said argument was rejected by recording a finding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version