Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Dec-21-2006
..... the above, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, i hereby, in accordance with powers delegated to me under section 19 of the sebi act, read with section 11 and 11b of the sebi act direct the following a. gammon india limited, shri abhijit rajan, nikhita estate developers pvt. ltd., devyani estate & properties pvt. ltd ..... regulation 2(c), 3 and 6(a) of the sebi (prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities market) regulations, 1995 read with section 77 of the companies act, 1956.19. meanwhile, gammon infrastructure projects ltd. (whose promoter is gammon) has filed a draft red herring prospectus with sebi in respect of its ..... to the concerned entities - shri abhijit rajan, gammon, devyani, nikhita as well as to rspl through a show cause notice issued under section 11(4)(b) and 11b of sebi act 1992 read with regulation 11 of sebi (prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities market) regulations, 1995. pursuant to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Nov-07-2006
..... 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the regulations) is the short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal filed under section 15t of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (for brevity the act) which is directed against the order of the adjudicating officer dated 25.8.2006 imposing a penalty of rs.25 lacs ..... particularly the minority shareholders of the target company. the board in its wisdom, therefore, imposed a restriction that during the offer period the acquirer or any person acting in concert with him shall not be on the board of directors of the target company. when the regulation was amended in the year 2002 the board ..... and these may first be noticed.2. burren energy india ltd. (hereinafter called burren) was incorporated in december 2004 as a private limited company under the companies act, 1985 of england and wales with its registered office in london. this company was formed to acquire the entire equity share capital of unocal bharat limited (for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Nov-03-2006
..... and if so, the gravity of it in the attendant circumstances of the case as uncovered in the course of hearings? ii) whether jspl had violated section 12a of sebi act, 1992 and regulation 3 and 4 of securities and exchange board of india (prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities market) regulations, 2003 ..... same, on the basis of evidence available on record, it cannot be concluded that jspl had indulged in manipulative and fraudulent activities which are violative of section 12a of sebi act, 1992 and regulation 3 and 4 of sebi (prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities market) regulations, 2003".2.4 the enquiry ..... account, jspl had facilitated the key operator in executing his game-plan of cornering the shares in various ipos. the aforesaid acts of jspl appeared to be in violation of section 12a of the act, regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 regulations and regulation 20a of the 1996 regulations and the same might invite a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Oct-26-2006
..... dated 8th august, 2005 against which this appeal has been filed reads as under: having regard to the nature and gravity of charges established, the factors contained in section 15j of the sebi act, 1992 with particulars reference to the unjust enrichment derived out of the impugned transactions and following the order of securities appellate tribunal in appeal no. 151/2004 dated ..... 1. this appeal filed under section 15t of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 is directed against the order dated august 8, 2005 passed by the adjudicating officer imposing a penalty of rs. 5 lacs on the appellant and anjudi property and investment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Sep-28-2006
..... be adequate and sufficient to have a deterrent effect on the broker.5.1 now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me in terms of section 19 of the sebi act, 1992 read with regulation 13(4) of the said regulations, i hereby impose a penalty of suspension of registration for a period of one month on ..... keshav fincon ltd (hereinafter referred to as the broker) is a member of the uttar pradesh stock exchange (upse) registered with sebi as a stock broker under section 12 of sebi act, 1992 with sebi registration no. inb100955434.1.2 inspection of the books of accounts, documents and other records maintained by the broker for the period from april, ..... been stayed by the competent court. i am of the opinion that as per section 20a of the sebi act bar of jurisdiction: no order passed by the board or the adjudicating officer under this act shall be appealable except as provided in section 15t or section 20 and no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Sep-19-2006
..... be adequate and sufficient to have a deterrent effect on the broker.5.1 now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me in terms of section 19 of the sebi act, 1992 read with regulation 13(4) of the said regulations, i hereby impose a minor penalty of suspension of registration for a period of 15 days on ..... services pvt. ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the broker) is a member of the uttar pradesh stock exchange (upse) registered with sebi as a stock broker under section 12 of sebi act, 1992 with sebi registration no. inb100830439.1.2 inspection of the books of accounts, documents and other records maintained by the broker for the financial year 2001-02 was ..... date of appointment of the compliance officer which gave the impression that the date of appointment can be the date of filing of the form and so despite the person acting de-jure as a compliance officer was appointed in the year 2003 and enclosed the said notice and the format. however, i am of the opinion that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Aug-31-2006
..... .financial consultants pvt. ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the broker) is a member of the uttar pradesh stock exchange ('upse') registered with sebi as a stock broker under section 12 of sebi act, 1992 with sebi registration no. inb100978235.1.2 inspection of the books of accounts, documents and other records maintained by the broker for the period from february, 2001 to ..... would be adequate and sufficient to have a deterrent effect on the broker.5.1 now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me in terms of section 19 of the sebi act, 1992 read with regulation 13(4) of the said regulations, i hereby impose a penalty of suspension of registration for one month on t.g.financial consultants pvt .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Aug-03-2006
..... securities ltd, abhishek industries ltd., trident aico-chem ltd. and mayadevi polycot ltd are group companies within the meaning of clause (e f) of section 2 of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (for short the mrtp). mr. varinder gupta is one of the promoters of trident aico-chem ltd which is the target company. the ..... of the target company on 8.6.2002. he is admittedly a promoter of that company. being a promoter, he is a part of the group as defined in section 2(ef) of the mrtp according to which group means two or more individuals, associations of individuals, firms, trusts, trustees or bodies corporate or any combination thereof which ..... 10, 11 and 12 of these regulations shall apply to: (i) group companies, coming within the definition of group as defined in the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 (54 of 1969); 6.(1) any person, who holds more than five per cent shares or voting rights in any company, shall within two months of notification .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Jul-27-2006
..... suits of different plaintiffs jointly where different plaintiffs have same interest. at the outset, it should be noted that as per the provisions of the telecom regulatory authority of india act, this tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in code of civil procedure but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. this tribunal also has the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on : Jul-14-2006
..... appellants (ketan parekh, kartik parekh and their entities) were called upon to show cause why suitable directions under regulation 11 of the regulations read with section 11b of the act including a direction to prohibit them from dealing in securities be not issued against them.none of the appellants responded to the second show cause notice. ..... and also those recorded under the first show cause notice the board by its order dated december 12, 2003 exercising its powers under section 11(4)(b) and 11b of the act read with regulation 11 of the regulations prohibited ketan parekh, kartik parekh and their entities from buying, selling and dealing in securities in ..... exchange board of india (prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices) regulations, 1995 (for short the regulations) and section 11 and 11b of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (for short the act) be not issued to them debarring them from dealing in securities.the appellant filed his reply on 16.12.2002 .....
Tag this Judgment!