Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (8) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....India Act, 1992 (for short "SEBI Act") for violating Regulation 10 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 ("SAST Regulations, 1997" for short) read with Regulation 35 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 ("SAST Regulations, 2011" for short) and by that order appellants are directed to pay the aforesaid penalty jointly and severally within the specified date. 2. In the present case, investigation carried out by SEBI revealed that appellants along with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kothari (now deceased) had acquired 6,83,717 shares of Kwality Credit & Leasing Limited (KCLL for short) during the period from 15....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o 25% from 15%. (f) As per SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014, the total indicative amount for such violation is Rs. 25 lacs only. (g) Apart from the aforesaid mitigating factors, in the present case the target company being in loss at the time of acquisition, there being no change in management and control due to such acquisition and the default being not repetitive in nature, the adjudicating officer is not justified in imposing penalty of Rs. 40 lac. 5. We see no merit in the above contentions. 6. In the present case, fact that the appellants acquired shares of KCLL in excess of the limit prescribed under Regulation 10 of SAST Regulations, 1997 is not in dispute. Although a....