Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra (Oral) 1. The appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by the order dated September 7, 2012 passed by the whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) confirming earlier ex-parte ad interim order dated December 28, 2011 restraining the appellants from taking up any new assignment or involvement on any new issue of capital including Initial Public Offerings (IPO), follow-on issue etc. in the securities market, in any manner, till further directions. It is prayed that the directions contained in the impugned order against the appellants be set aside and pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the operation and implementation of the impugned order may be stayed. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order, in brief, are that RDB Rasayans Limited (the company) came out with an IPO of shares during the period September 21, 2011 to September 23, 2011. The Board noticed wide fluctuations in the share price of the company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra 1. This order will dispose of two Appeals no. 55 and 56 of 2012 which arise out of orders dated January 4, 2012 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) holding the appellants, in these two appeals, guilty of violating Section 12A(d) and (e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act) and imposing a penalty of Rs.50 lacs and Rs.10 lacs respectively under Section 15G(i) of the Act. 2. Mr. V. K. Kaul, appellant in Appeal no. 55 of 2012, was a non-executive independent director of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (Ranbaxy) for the period from January 1, 2007 to December 18, 2008. Ranbaxy is the parent company of Solrex Pharmaceuticals Limited (Solrex). Ranbaxy is also the holding company of Rexcel Pharmaceutical Limited (Rexcel) and Solus Pharmaceutical Limited (Solus) which are 100 per cent subsidiaries of Ranbaxy. Solrex is the partnership firm between Rexcel and Solus. Therefore, Solrex is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra 1. This order will dispose of two Appeals no. 55 and 56 of 2012 which arise out of orders dated January 4, 2012 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) holding the appellants, in these two appeals, guilty of violating Section 12A(d) and (e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act) and imposing a penalty of Rs.50 lacs and Rs.10 lacs respectively under Section 15G(i) of the Act. 2. Mr. V. K. Kaul, appellant in Appeal no. 55 of 2012, was a non-executive independent director of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (Ranbaxy) for the period from January 1, 2007 to December 18, 2008. Ranbaxy is the parent company of Solrex Pharmaceuticals Limited (Solrex). Ranbaxy is also the holding company of Rexcel Pharmaceutical Limited (Rexcel) and Solus Pharmaceutical Limited (Solus) which are 100 per cent subsidiaries of Ranbaxy. Solrex is the partnership firm between Rexcel and Solus. Therefore, Solrex is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy 1. This order will dispose of eight Appeals no.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of 2012. 2. Since the issue involved in these appeals is identical, a common order covering all the appellants is passed for the sake of convenience. 3. The appellants, Shri N. Narayanan, Shri K. Natarahjan, Shri K.S. Kashiraman and Shri G. Ramakrishanan, were directors of Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd. (the company). The company was engaged in the business of film distribution, running of cinema theatres etc. The shares of the company were listed on different stock exchanges in the country. The role of each of the appellants in the company is listed below. Shri N. Narayanan – promoter and whole time director Shri K. Natarahjan – independent director and chairman of audit committee Shri K.S. Kashiraman - independent director and member of audit committee Mr. G. Ramakrishanan - independent director and member of audit committee 4. The appeals arise out of investigation conducted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra 1. This order will dispose of two Appeals, no. 79 and 80 of 2012, which arise out of a common order dated January 25, 2012 passed by the whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) directing the appellants to disgorge unlawful gain of Rs.60,72,000 each and also pay Rs.75,31,111 each being simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid unlawful gain for the period January, 2000 to May, 2010. 2. The allegation against the appellants is that they got preferential allotment of 6,00,000 shares each of Ojas Technochem Products Limited (the company) without actual infusion of funds by them as consideration. The appellants sold these shares subsequently at an average price of Rs.10.12 per share making illegal profit of Rs.60,72,000 each. This, according to the Board, was violative of the provisions of Regulation 4(b) and 4(d) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy 1. The adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) imposed a penalty of Rs.14 crores on the appellants, Dushyant Natwarlal Dalal and Puloma Dalal, on June 2, 2011. The above penalty was imposed under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act) for violating the provisions of section 12A (a), (b) and (c) of the Act read with regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (referred to hereinafter as the FUPT Regulations). The cause of action for the impugned adjudication order arose out of the investigation conducted in the dealings in the shares of certain companies during their Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) covering the period 2003 to 2005. The investigations revealed that the appellants indulged in the unlawful act of cornering the shares of the company acting as financ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P.K. Malhotra 1. This order will dispose of three Appeals no. 59, 60 and 64 of 2012 which arise out of a common order dated January 5, 2012 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) holding the appellants guilty of violating Regulation 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (for short the Regulations) and imposing a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs each under section 15G of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act). 2. The appellant in Appeal no. 64 of 2012, Mr. Manoj Gaur, is the Executive Chairman of the Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (the company). Appellant in Appeal no. 59 of 2012 Mrs. Urvashi Gaur is wife of Mr. Manoj Gaur and appellant in Appeal no. 60 of 2012 Mr. Sameer Gaur is the brother of Mr. Manoj Gaur. By virtue of their being wife and brother respectively of Mr. Manoj Gaur they are persons deemed to be connected to the appellant in terms of regulati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra 1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant has indulged in insider trading and violated regulations 3(i) and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (for short the regulations) read with Clause 3.2.2 and 3.2.5 of the code of conduct as specified in Part A of Schedule I of the said regulations. 2. The appellant is a whole time director of the Jaiprakash Associates Limited (the company). The Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) conducted investigations into the trading in the scrip of the company during the period September 29, 2008 to October 27, 2008. It was found that the appellant was involved in the consolidation of quarterly financial results for the quarter ending September 30, 2008. The appellant was also involved in the preparation of agenda for the Board’s meeting to consider quarterly financial results, proposed interim di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a corporate member of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE) and National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) and is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) as a stock broker. The present appeal arises out of an order passed by the adjudicating officer of the Board imposing a penalty of 5 lacs under section 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act). The appellant was found guilty of violating the provisions of clause A(1) and A(2) of the code of conduct as specified under schedule II read with regulation 7 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Brokers Regulation). The adjudicating officer concluded that the appellant, a broker, failed to maintain integrity and exercise due skill and care by allowing one Sunil Mehta to t...
Tag this Judgment!