9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act for short) for violating the provisions of Regulation 13(4) and 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (PIT Regulations for short) and penalty of Rs. 2 lac under section 15HB of SEBI Act is imposed for violating clause 4.2 of the Model Code of Conduct for Prevention of Insider Trading for Listed Companies set out in part A, Schedule I of PIT Regulations ('Model Code of Conduct' for short). 2. Appellant is a promoter of Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Company Ltd (company for short) whose shares are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. 3. During the course of investigations it was notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be set aside and in any event deserves to be reduced substantially for the following reasons: a) there is nothing in the impugned order to suggest that there was any intention on part of the appellant to suppress purchase and sale of shares of the company in which the appellant was promoter/director. b) Making disclosure to the company but failing to make disclosures to the stock exchange was an inadvertent error and there was no malafide intention on part of the appellant. c) failure to make disclosure has not resulted in any profit to the appellant. (d) failure to make disclosure has not caused any loss to the investors. (e) violation of PIT Regulations committed by the appellant is not repetitive in nature. (f) In the absence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosures within time stipulated under Regulation 13 of the PIT Regulations renders the promoter/director liable for penalty under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act. As per section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act (as it then stood) penalty imposable for failure to make disclosures within the stipulated under the PIT Regulations was 1 lac rupees for each day during which such failure continued or Rs. 1 crore whichever is less. In the present case, since disclosures have not at all been made, penalty imposable on the appellant would be Rs. 1 crore. However, after taking into consideration all mitigating factors as contemplated under section 15J of the SEBI Act, the adjudicating officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lac as against the imposable penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulations and the Model Code of Conduct. Similarly decision of this Tribunal in the case of DSE Financial Services Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable on facts. In that case the dispute related to certain irregularities in maintaining the records noticed during the course of inspection, whereas, in the present case, appellant is guilty of not complying with the mandatory requirement of making disclosures under Regulation 13 of PIT Regulations and is held guilty of entering into opposite transactions in violation of the Model Code of Conduct. Thus both decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are wholly distinguishable and have no relevance to the facts of the present case. 11. Mr. Chatterji learned senior counsel appearing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
