TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 04, 2010 to January 10, 2011 based on which a show cause notice was issued to the appellants who are directors in the company to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held and penalty should not be imposed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act" for convenience) for the alleged violations. 2. The violations were that the appellants Ashok Shivlal Rupani and Naresh Rupani as directors had sold shares during the investigation period that is on January 04, 2010 to January 10, 2011 and they failed to file necessary disclosures under Regulation 13(4) and 13(5) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations, 1992 ("PIT Regulations, 1992" for convenience). The seco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 2 lakh each on the three directors for violation for violation of the LODR Regulations and the Listing Agreement. 4. The directors of the company being aggrieved by the two orders have filed Appeal Nos. 417 of 2018 and 440 of 2018. Since the issue involves a common ground, both the appeals are being decided together. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was contended that there was an inordinate delay in the issuance of the show cause notice for violation of provisions of PIT Regulations or of the LODR Regulations and therefore on the ground of inordinate delay the proceeding should have been dropped and no penalty could have been imposed. It was contended that the alleged violation occurred in the year 2010 wherea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings. The Supreme Court in Government of India vs, Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Others, [AIR (1989) SC 1771] held that in the absence of any period of limitation, the authority is required to exercise its powers within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend on the facts of each case and that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard as the determination of this question would depend on the facts of each case. This proposition of law has been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (2004) Vol.12 SCC 670, State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd (2007) Vol.11 SCC 363 and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Dist. & ....