Appeal No. 38 of 2013 And Appeal No. 39 of 2013. Case: 1. K. Nirmala, 2. K. Nirupama Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. Securities and Exchange Board of India
| Case Number | Appeal No. 38 of 2013 And Appeal No. 39 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Advocates |
| Judges | Jog Singh, Member |
| Issue | Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Sections 151, 15A(b); Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by the Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 - Rule 3; Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 - Regulations 8(A)(2),... |
| Judgement Date | April 18, 2013 |
| Court | Securities and Exchange Board of India |
Judgment:
Jog Singh, Member (Oral)
-
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
-
Appeal no. 38 of 2013 is taken as leading case for the fact purposes. The appellants are promoters and the shareholders of the company in question i.e. Shriniwas Power & Infrastructure Limited which is listed on Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE). The respondent found some irregularity pertaining to the matter of pledges of large number of shares by the two appellants and as such after issuing show cause notices to both of them in the adjudicating proceedings conducted under Section 15I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Rule 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by the Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995. By order dated November 30, 2012, the learned adjudicating officer came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where penalty of ` 3,25,000/- should be imposed on the appellant in appeal no. 38 of 2013 and penalty of ` 3,00,000/- on the appellant in appeal no. 39 of 2013 under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act for violation of the provisions of Regulations 8(A)(2) and 8(A)(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (for short SAST Regulations) read with Regulation 35 of SAST Regulations, 2011, Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) and Regulation 31(2) read with 31(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011. They were also found guilty of Regulation 13(3) read with Regulation 13(5) and Regulation 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (for short PIT Regulations).
-
Shri Deepak Dhane, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants did not play any fraud on the investors and there was no intention to do so. Similarly, learned counsel for the appellants submits that no undue gain has accrued to the two appellants by virtue of the non- disclosure of the pledges in question. In nutshell, the submission is that no loss was caused to any of the investors by such inadvertent mistake. They have also stated in the appeal that they will not repeat this unintentional mistake or irregularity in future. On the other hand, Mr. Kumar Desai and Mr. Mihir Mody, learned counsel for the respondent submit that the pledges in question were...
To continue reading
Request your trial