Appeal No. 209 of 2014. Case: Coimbatore Flavors & Fragrances Ltd. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. Securities and Exchange Board of India
| Case Number | Appeal No. 209 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pankaj P. Pandit and Sahil Vora, Advocates and For Respondents: Kumar Desai and Khushboo Tatia, Advocates |
| Judges | J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer, Jog Singh and A.S. Lamba, Members |
| Issue | Securities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Section 15A(b) |
| Judgement Date | August 11, 2014 |
| Court | Securities and Exchange Board of India |
Judgment:
Jog Singh, Member
-
This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated April 30, 2014 imposing a monetary penalty of ` 2,00,000/-each on appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the violation of Regulations 8(3) and Regulations 30(1), (2) read with Regulation 30(3) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 respectively and ` 2,50,000/- on appellant no. 3 for the violation of Regulations 8(1), 8(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, hereinafter referred to SAST Regulations.
-
While examining the letter of offer document of one Mr. P.B. Krishna Prasad, the acquirer, to acquire the shares of appellant no. 1 i.e. the company, it was observed by SEBI that the erstwhile promoter of the company, i.e. appellant no. 2 did not comply with the provisions of Regulation 30(1) & 30(2) read with 30(3) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, hereinafter referred to 'SAST Regulations, 2011' for the financial year ended March 31, 2012 within the stipulated time. Similarly, appellant no. 3 had delayed filings under the provisions of Regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, ('SAST Regulations, 1997') for the financial years ended March 31, 2003 and March 31, 2005. The company had also failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation 8(3) of the SAST Regulation 1997 within the stipulated time during year 2003. Adjudication proceedings were initiated under Chapter VI-A of SEBI Act, 1992 against the three appellants for the violation of aforesaid regulations, and a common show cause notice dated January 27, 2014 was issued to the appellants as to why an inquiry should not be initiated against them and penalty be not imposed under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act for the alleged violations. In response to the said SCN, the three appellants filed their replies vide letters dated 28/25/27th March, 2014 respectively. The learned adjudicating officer after considering replies filed by the appellants and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing held the appellants guilty of violating the regulatory provisions in question and imposed a penalty of ` 2,00,000/-each on the company and Shri Benny Abraham and further a penalty of ` 2,50,000/-on appellant no. 3 under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act, 1992. This is how the present appeal has been preferred by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial