TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lations, 2011 – Held that:- making disclosures under SAST Regulations, 1997 and SAST Regulations, 2011 was mandatory – In 2011 there was delay of two days, while in 2012 there was delay of six days in compliance after due date – Default was repetitive in nature and evident that appellants instead of being more careful were more carefree – Appellants who were seeking to acquire control over company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort), whereby composite penalty of ₹ 5 lac has been imposed upon all three appellants for violating regulation 7(1) read with regulation 7(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 ( SAST Regulations, 1997 for short) and regulation 29(2) read with regulation 29(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company were suspended from trading during the period from January 6, 1997 to February 16, 2012 in the Stock Exchanges. Accordingly, counsel for appellants submitted that the penalty imposed upon appellants deserves to be deleted. 3. We see not merit in the above contentions. It is not in dispute that making disclosures under SAST Regulations, 1997 and SAST Regulations, 2011 is mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the first transaction it is evident that the appellants instead of being more careful after the first default, they were more carefree. Moreover, fact that appellants on February 5, 2013 had made public announcement for acquisition of 26% shares of the company, clearly shows that the appellants had systematically acquired shares with a view to gain control over the management of the company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
