2019 (12) TMI 1654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bengani, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shah and Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate i/b. ELP. ORDER Per : Justice M.T. Joshi (Oral) 1. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the present 12 appellants for violation of Regulation 11(1) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAST Regulations') the present appeal is preferred. 2. The submissions from both the sides as well as the record would show that on the reference from the Commissioner of Income Tax (IAP)-1, Indore dated May 2, 2014 SEBI conducted investigation in the alleged artificial price rise in the scrip of Linkhouse Industrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oters. In the situation, the Adjudicating Officer found the violation of the provisions and imposed the penalty as detailed above. 4. Dr. S.K. Jain, Company Secretary for the appellant submitted before us that the order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground of the delay. He submitted that the violation if any on the acquisition of shares had occurred between March, 2004 to June, 2004. The show cause notices were issued by SEBI dated 7th November, 2017 and, thereafter, the impugned order is passed on 24th May, 2018. He further submitted that the investigating report dated 18th March, 2017 itself would show that there was lack of documentary evidence about the mode of shares acquired by each of the appellant. Hence it was recommended th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. The show cause notice however was issued in the present case dated 7th November, 2017. The investigation report itself would show that for non availability of the documentary evidences the investigating authority did not recommend taking drastic action to direct making of public announcement. Thus, there was inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings. In the circumstance, it would be relevant to quote the reasoning forwarded by us in the case of Ashok Shivlal Rupani & Anr. vs. SEBI, Appeal nos.471 of 2018 and 440 of 2018 dated 22nd August, 2019 in para nos. 6 and 7 as under:- 6. Having considering the matter, we are of the view that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in initiating proceedings agains....