TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 1. Investigation was conducted into the irregularities in the scrip of AstraZeneca Pharma India Limited ('AZPIL' for short) for possible violations of the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 ('PIT Regulations 1992' for short) for the period from May 2, 2013 to March 30, 2014. Pursuant to the investigation report, a show cause notice was issued on September 29, 2017. Replies were submitted and the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) by the impugned order dated May 23, 2018 imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the Company AZPIL and Supriya Kumar Guha under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992 for violation of Regulati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2002 a show cause notice was issued in September 2017 after more than 15 years and therefore on account of passage of time the appellant Company AZPIL does not have the necessary correspondence relating to the subject in question. It was, thus, contended that there has been an inordinate delay in issuance of the show cause notice on this aspect and no action thus could be initiated or taken. 4. The AO found that no specific time limit has been provided to comply with the model code of conduct under the amended PIT Regulations 1992 but contended that there was an inordinate delay in adopting the model code of conduct. 5. Having hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the stand taken by the appellant namely that they had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....maceuticals, 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. & Anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao & Ors. (2015) Vol. 3 SCC 695. The Supreme Court recent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons 1992 and consequently a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find that Clause 1.2 of the model code of conduct stipulates that Compliance Officer shall be responsible for setting forth policies, procedures, monitoring adherence to the rules for the preservation of "Price Sensitive Information" etc. For facility, the clause relating to "trading window" of the model code of conduct is extracted here under:- "3.2 Trading window 3.2.1 The company shall specify a trading period, to be called "trading window", for trading in the company's securities. The trading window shall be closed during the time the information referred to in para 3.2.3 is unpublished. 3.2.2 When the trading win....