SEBI penalty appeal dismissed for failure to disclose yearly information under regulations.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging a penalty imposed by SEBI on the appellant for failing to make yearly disclosures under regulation 8(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997. The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 10 lac was not unreasonable or excessive, considering the mandatory nature of the disclosure obligation and the prescribed penalty under the SEBI Act, 1992. The appellant's arguments regarding the suspension of trading and lack of investor complaints were not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs awarded to either party.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed for violating regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed to challenge a penalty imposed by SEBI on the appellant for failing to make yearly disclosures under regulation 8(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997. The appellant argued that the penalty of Rs. 10 lac was arbitrary, excessive, and violated Section 15J of the SEBI Act, 1992. The appellant contended that there was no intention to hide the transaction by not making the required disclosures, and trading in the appellant's equity shares was suspended on the Delhi Stock Exchange for a period, which, according to the appellant, justified not imposing the penalty. Additionally, the appellant claimed that disclosures under regulation 8(3) were not disseminated by the stock exchanges and were only for academic purposes, and there were no investor complaints against the appellant for non-disclosure.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contentions, emphasizing that the obligation to make disclosures under regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997 is mandatory, irrespective of the circumstances. The penalty for not making such disclosures is prescribed under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992, which is Rs. 1 lac per day or Rs. 1 crore per year, whichever is lower. In this case, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer was Rs. 10 lac for all the years combined, amounting to less than Rs. 1 lac per year. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to impose the penalty was not unreasonable or excessive, considering the mitigating factors under section 15J of the SEBI Act, 1992. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

---