TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Overturns Penalties on Company & Officer Due to SEBI's Delay; Emphasizes Timely Regulatory Actions.</h1> <h3>AstraZeneca Pharma India Ltd., Supriya Kumar Guha, Pawan Singhal Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai.</h3> AstraZeneca Pharma India Ltd., Supriya Kumar Guha, Pawan Singhal Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai. - TMI Issues:1. Delay in adopting the model code of conduct by the listed company.2. Imposition of penalty on the listed company for violating the code of conduct.3. Compliance officer's failure to close the trading window within the specified time.Analysis:Issue 1: Delay in adopting the model code of conduct by the listed companyThe investigation revealed irregularities in the scrip of a listed company for possible violations of SEBI regulations. A show cause notice was issued after a significant delay of more than 15 years from the alleged violation period. The appellant argued that the delay prejudiced their case as necessary correspondence was no longer available. The Tribunal noted the delay in adopting the model code of conduct by the listed company but also highlighted the inaction by SEBI for over 15 years. It was held that the penalty imposed due to the delay was unjustified, and proceedings could not be initiated after such a prolonged period.Issue 2: Imposition of penalty on the listed company for violating the code of conductThe listed company was penalized for violating the code of conduct related to insider trading regulations. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in adopting the model code of conduct but emphasized that SEBI also failed to act promptly. It was observed that the penalty imposed on the listed company was erroneous due to the inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty could be levied based on the principle that regulatory actions should be taken within a reasonable time frame.Issue 3: Compliance officer's failure to close the trading window within the specified timeThe Compliance Officer was penalized for not closing the trading window within the stipulated time frame after the dissemination of delisting information. The Tribunal found a technical violation by the Compliance Officer but noted that no actual trading occurred, resulting in no gains or losses for investors. Consequently, the Tribunal decided that a penalty was unwarranted, and only a warning was issued to the Compliance Officer to be cautious in the future.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the listed company and the Compliance Officer, quashing the impugned orders imposing penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely regulatory actions and highlighted the need for adherence to the code of conduct while considering the circumstances of each case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
