9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act" for short), out of which penalty of Rs. 6,50,000 is imposed for violating regulation 7(1) read with regulation 7(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 ("SAST Regulations, 1997" for short) & regulation 13(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prevention of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 ("PIT Regulations" for short) and penalty of Rs. 6,50,0000 is imposed for violating regulation 13(3) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations. 2. In the impugned order, penalty is imposed on the appellant basically on ground that the appellant had acquired and sold shares of Fact Enterprise Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns:- a) Impugned violation took place in the year 2008/2010 whereas show cause notice was issued belatedly on February 28, 2014 and the impugned order is passed belatedly on August 31, 2015 and hence, in view of inordinate delay in initiating proceedings against the appellant, the penalty imposed against the appellant deserves to be deleted. b) Substantial shares of the Target Company acquired by the appellant were by way of pledge and pledged shares do not trigger the disclosure requirements. c) Alternatively, it is submitted that penalty imposed on the appellant is exorbitant, excessively high and the said penalty has been imposed without considering the mitigating factors set out under Section 15J of the SEBI Act. 5. We see no merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant that the proceedings have been initiated belatedly and, therefore, penalty deserves to be deleted cannot be sustained. 8. Argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that substantial shares of the Target Company were acquired by the appellant under a pledge and disclosure provisions would not apply to the pledged shares is equally without any merit. Findings recorded in the impugned order is that the appellant had not acquired the shares under a pledge by following the procedure prescribed under regulation 58 of the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996 ("DP Regulations" for short) and in fact the pledged shares were transferred to the demat account of the appellant. Once the shares are transferred to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
