Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: sebi securities and exchange board of india or securities appellate tribunal sat Page 2 of about 2,123 results (0.139 seconds)

May 08 2014 (TRI)

Dushyant N. Dalal Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi Bhav ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. Not on Board. Mentioned by learned counsel for the Applicant. By consent, Misc. Application taken up for hearing. 2. By this Misc. Application Applicant seeks modification of our order dated April 29, 2014. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order the word œapplication? should be substituted by the word œrequest? because the appellant had only requested for inspection of various documents / cross examination of witnesses and had not made any application. We see no reason to modify our order, because, in our order we have only recorded the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent. Moreover, statement made by the counsel for the respondent is with a view to comply our order dated October 4, 2012 and hence no modification of the order is necessary. 3. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the present Misc. Application and same is dismissed with no order as to...

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2014 (TRI)

Devyani Chandrakant Doshi Shrutina Vs. Securities and Exchange Board o ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge order of Adjudicating Officer of SEBI dated January 23, 2014 whereby penalty of Rs. 12 Lakhs has been imposed upon Appellant under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Grievance of the Appellant is that the acquisition of shares in the present case was by way of transmission and not by transfer and therefore provisions of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 and SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 were not attracted. Learned counsel for appellant further relies upon a decision passed by the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI dated November 29, 2013 in the case of Shri D.S. Reddy / Ms. D. Sarojanamma wherein a lenient view was taken by not imposing penalty and Ms. D. Sarojanamma was exonerated from the charges levelled against her in the show case notice. Since the above order was not brought to the notice of Adjudicating Office...

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2014 (TRI)

Jay Energy and S. Energies Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of I ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge the adjudication order dated March 30, 2012 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) wherein penalty of Rs.45 lac has been imposed upon the appellant for not redressing investor grievances within the time specified therein and not submitting action taken report within the time specified in the specified format. 2. Grievance of the appellant is that, it is a defunct company since last 14 years. It is contended that inspite of the appellant company being a defunct company steps were taken from time to time to redress the investor grievances. 3. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this appeal all investor grievances that were pending as on the date of adjudication order dated March 30, 2012 have been redressed. 4. On being pointed out by the counsel for respondent that as on date there are 25 more investor grievances,...

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2014 (TRI)

Sanjay Jethilal Soni Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, Sebi ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. By Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2014 applicant seeks condonation of delay of about 729 days in filing Appeal No. 58 of 2014 wherein the adjudication order dated October 21, 2011 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) is challenged. 2. Grievance of the applicant is that although a copy of the impugned order was forwarded by SEBI at the address of Shri Viral Kapadia as given by the applicant, there was considerable delay on the part of Shri Viral Kapadia in handing over copy of the impugned order to the applicant. Immediately on receiving copy of impugned order from Shri Viral Kapadia applicant approached his advocate with a view to challenge the impugned order and accordingly the present appeal is filed belatedly. 3. As rightly contended by counsel for respondent when both the applicant as also Shri Viral Kapadia were residing at Ahmedabad there was no ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2014 (TRI)

Ms. Sangeeta Sethia and Another Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of I ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Jog Singh, Member 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated April 4, 2013 passed by the learned Whole Time Member (WTM) of the Respondent directing the two appellants and one Mr. Swaminathan Rajendran to make public announcement to the shareholders of the Filatex Fashions Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as œtarget company?), within 90 days of the date of this order, in terms of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as œTakeover Regulations?) and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the offer price from the date when the appellants acquired shares of the target company. Appellant No. 1 Ms. Sangeeta Sethia who claims to be a bonafide investor of the target company and the Appellant No. 2 happens to be the Promoter and Managing Director of the target company. Both the appellants are wife and husband respectively. 2. Appellant No. 1 along with said S. Rajendran acquired 6 lac shares in...

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2014 (TRI)

Madhusudan C Thakkar Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi B ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) Counsel for appellant undertakes to remove all objections within a period of four weeks from today and also seeks liberty to substitute a composite appeal by inserting all the relevant documents. Undertaking give by the counsel is accepted and liberty is granted to the appellant to substitute the appeal compilation by a composite compilation within a period of four weeks from today. Accordingly, Appeal no.1 of 2014 filed under Rule 8(5) of Securities Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 2000 is allowed, impugned order passed by Registrar (Offg.) on 11/3/2014 is set aside and Appeal (L) No.24 of 2014 is restored to file subject to fulfillment of aforesaid conditions with no order as to costs....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2014 (TRI)

Dushyant N. Dalal and Another Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. In our order passed in Appeal No. 199 of 2013 on January 17, 2014 we had directed the appellant to file fresh application within two weeks from that day and on such an application being filed, Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) shall consider the said application within a period of six weeks thereafter. 2. It appears that the appellant filed application on February 12, 2014 which was delayed by nine days. By a communication dated March 21, 2014 the application made by the appellant has been rejected on the ground that the same is filed beyond the time prescribed in our order dated January 17, 2014. Challenging the communication dated March 21, 2014 present appeal is filed. 3. Although, no fault can be found with the decision of SEBI in rejecting the application which was filed beyond the time specified in our order dated January 17, 2014, in our opinion in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to con...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2014 (TRI)

G. Suresh Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi Bhavan

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Jog Singh, Member 1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) against the impugned order dated December 17, 2013 passed by Adjudicating Officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the Appellant under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act. The appellant has been found guilty of violating the provisions of Regulations 13(4) read with Regulation 13(5) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (PIT Regulations) and Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 7(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (SAST Regulations). 2. The Appellant is Managing Director of CG-Vak Software and Exports Ltd. (the Company). Shares of the Company are listed on the both Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and Coimbatore Stock Exchange (CSE). The Respondent received an examination report from the BSE which, inter alia, revealed that the Appellant ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2014 (TRI)

Cg-vak Software and Exports Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer 1. Whether the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short), by impugned order dated December 17, 2013 was justified in imposing penalty of ` 3 lac on appellant under Section 15A(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (œSEBI Act? for short) is the question raised in this appeal. 2. Penalty is imposed on the appellant for allegedly violating regulation 13(6) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (œPIT Regulations? for short). 3. Under regulation 13(6) of PIT Regulations, every listed company is required to disclose to all Stock Exchanges on which the company is listed, within two working days of receiving information specified under sub-regulations (1),(2),(2A),(3),(4) and (4A) of regulation 13 of PIT Regulations. 4. In the preset case, it is not in dispute that there is 14 days and 31 days delay in making disclosures on receiving inform...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2014 (TRI)

Ford Brother Capital Service Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer 1. Whether the Adjudication Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short), by impugned order dated May 14, 2013 is justified in imposing penalty of Rs.15 lac upon appellant under Section 15A(a), penalty of Rs.10 lac under Section 15HA and penalty of Rs.5 lac under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (œSEBI Act? for short) is the question raised in this appeal. 2. Dispute in the present case relates to trading in the scrip of Nandan Exim Limited on the Bombay Stock Exchange (œBSE? for short) during the period from June 13, 2005 to September 30, 2005 and September 20, 2006 to November 23, 2006 (œInvestigation Period? for short) 3. Penalty of Rs.10 lac under Section 15HA of SEBI Act has been imposed on ground that the appellant has violated Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securitie...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //