https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338588 Delay in initiating penalty proceedings for SEBI disclosure violations did not vitiate the penalty because no limitation period was prescribed and no prior knowledge causing unexplained delay was shown. Shares transferred from a pledge into the appellant's demat account were treated as an acquisition carrying ownership rights and obligations, so the disclosure requirements still applied once the prescribed threshold was crossed. The penalty was also not excessive, because the adjudicating authority had already imposed an amount well below the statutory maximum and had considered mitigation. On these grounds, the penalty order was sustained. en-us Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2017 09:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338588 Delay in initiating penalty proceedings for SEBI disclosure violations did not vitiate the penalty because no limitation period was prescribed and no prior knowledge causing unexplained delay was shown. Shares transferred from a pledge into the appellant's demat account were treated as an acquisition carrying ownership rights and obligations, so the disclosure requirements still applied once the prescribed threshold was crossed. The penalty was also not excessive, because the adjudicating authority had already imposed an amount well below the statutory maximum and had considered mitigation. On these grounds, the penalty order was sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338588