2015 (4) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 5 lac is imposed upon the appellant under Section 15A(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act, 1992" for short) for violating regulation 13(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 ("PIT Regulations, 1992" for short) and regulation 29(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 ("Takeover Regulations, 2011" for short). 2. Facts relevant for the present appeal are that on 2nd May, 2013 appellant sold 64,770 shares of Parichay Investments Limited ("the target company" for convenience) which represented 5.4% of the total shareholding of the target company and therefore under regulation 13....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... being a lay investor was not aware of the obligation to make disclosures and therefore in the facts of the present case, for the inadvertent error penalty of Rs. 5 lac imposed upon the appellant is unjustified. (b) Failure on part of the appellant to make disclosures was not with a view to take undue advantage in any manner whatsoever and the failure to make disclosures being only technical, unintentional and inadvertent, in the interest of justice penalty imposed against the appellant be quashed and set aside. (c) No loss is caused to any investor on account of delay in making the disclosures and hence imposition of penalty is unjustified. (d) Appellant being a blind person, the adjudicating officer ought to have taken a lenient ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble. 8. Argument that requisite particulars of sale in question were available on the website of the Stock Exchange and therefore for failure to make disclosures within the stipulated time penalty ought not to have been imposed, is without any merit, because, obligation to make disclosures within the stipulated time is a mandatory obligation and penalty is imposed for not complying with the mandatory obligation. Similarly argument that the failure to make disclosures within the stipulated time, was unintentional, technical or inadvertent and that no gain or unfair advantage has accrued to the appellant, is also without any merit, because, all these factors are mitigating factors and these factors do not obliterate the obligation to make ....