TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the noticee, as compliance officer, violated the obligation to close the trading window when unpublished price sensitive information existed in relation to the acquisition transaction; (ii) Whether penalty was warranted and, if so, the quantum of penalty.
Issue (i): Whether the noticee, as compliance officer, violated the obligation to close the trading window when unpublished price sensitive information existed in relation to the acquisition transaction?
Analysis: The acquisition announcement was treated as unpublished price sensitive information because it related directly to the company, was a material corporate acquisition, and was likely to affect the price of the securities when it became public. The disclosure itself stated that the acquisition would help grow the fixed income advisory business, and the transaction was regarded as more than a mere software purchase. The term sheet was found to contain the substantive terms of the transaction and to show sufficient finality for the purposes of the trading-window obligation. As compliance officer, the noticee was responsible for administering the code of conduct and closing the trading window when possession of unpublished price sensitive information could reasonably be expected.
Conclusion: The noticee was held to have violated Clause 4 of Schedule B read with Regulation 9(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty was warranted and, if so, the quantum of penalty?
Analysis: The violation was treated as established, and the mitigating factors did not displace liability. The absence of quantified investor loss or proven trading by designated persons did not prevent penalty, and the repeated nature of similar non-closures was treated as a relevant aggravating circumstance. The adjudicating officer therefore assessed the lapse as warranting monetary penalty under the statutory framework governing contraventions without separate penalty provisions.
Conclusion: Penalty was imposed on the noticee in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000.
Final Conclusion: The order fastens liability on the compliance officer for failure to act on price-sensitive corporate information and confirms that non-closure of the trading window can attract monetary penalty even where no actual trading loss is shown.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a corporate announcement constitutes unpublished price sensitive information and the compliance officer fails to close the trading window as required, contravention is complete and monetary penalty may follow irrespective of proof of actual trading profit or investor loss.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
