Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Housing Development Finance ... vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India on 10 November, 2000

Escorts Mutual Fund vs P. Sri Sai Ram, Adjudicating Officer, ... on 4 January, 2002

Learned Representative also submitted that non submission of Report to SEBI under regulation 57 is an offence covered under section 15 A(a) of the Act, and that in support of the said submission cited this Tribunal's decision in Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., v. Securities and Exchange Board of India ( [2000]28 SCL 289: [2000] 39 CLA 229).
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Doogar And Associates Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 30 September, 2003

21. The Appellant's contention that the alleged failure is not one falling under clause (a) of section 15A but under clause (b) of section 15A and as such the penalty of fifty thousand rupees imposed is more than the penalty prescribed for the offence is not correct. The scope of section 15A was examined by this Tribunal in the Housing Development Finance Corporation case (supra) and the observation of this Tribunal have been stated in the earlier part of this order. In the light of the same the Appellant's argument that the failure to submit the copy of the public announcement to SEBI in terms of regulation 15(2) attracts clause (b) and not clause (a) of section 15A is untenable. The issue for consideration in the present appeal, in the light of facts and circumstances, is the as to whether the Respondent has made out a case warranting imposition of monetary penalty.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 1 January, 2003

In fact this Tribunal in its order dated 10-11-2000 in HDFC Ltd's case (supra) had held that non-compliance of Regulation 3(4) attracts Section 15A(a) and not Section 15A(b) that for the reasons best known to the Respondent, it has opted to go contrary to the view held by the Tribunal in the said order, despite that the Tribunal's order is binding on the Respondent till such time the order is stayed or reversed by an Appellate Court, The facts in HDFC Ltd.'s case (supra) case have been stated in the said order. HDFC acquired 47,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each at a price of Rs. 25 per share, of one of its associate companies namely Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited (the company). Since 47,50,000 shares constituted 10.92 per cent of the paid capital of the company, in terms of Regulation 3(4) of the 1997 Regulations. The said company was required to submit a report along with supporting documents to the Respondent within 21 days of the date of acquisition of shares. The report was inadvertently not submitted within the stipulated time. It was submitted on its own, on 30-4-1998, when the lapse was noticed while preparing the annual disclosure report required to be filed with the Respondent under the Regulations. The Respondent on knowing about the belated submission of the report, decided to take penal action against the company. Accordingly the Respondent vide its order dated 12-11-1999 appointed an adjudicating officer to conduct an inquiry in the matter and impose penalty as provided under Section 15A of the Act. The adjudicating officer after inquiry concluded that the company was in default in not submitting the report, etc. to the Respondent as required under Sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations and in that context in terms of Section 15A(b) of the Act, the adjudicating officer vide his order dated 24-7-2000 imposed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as penalty against the company. The company challenged the said order in an appeal before the Tribunal.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Sangeeta J. Valia vs Adjudicating Officer, Securities And ... on 30 November, 2000

22. This Tribunal in the case of Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India (Appeal No.21/2000 decided on 10.11.2000) had examined the very same issue. In the said case also the charge against HDFC was non-reporting of acquisition of shares covered under an exempted category to the Board in terms of regulation 3(4) within the stipulated time and the penalty was imposed by the Adjudicating Officer under clause (b) of section 15A. In the said appeal the tribunal had held as under:
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Sangeeta J Valia vs Adjudicating Officer Securities & ... on 30 November, 2000

22. This Tribunal in the case of Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India (Appeal No.21/2000 decided on 10.11.2000) had examined the very same issue. In the said case also the charge against HDFC was non-reporting of acquisition of shares covered under an exempted category to the Board in terms of regulation 3(4) within the stipulated time and the penalty was imposed by the Adjudicating Officer under clause (b) of section 15A. In the said appeal the tribunal had held as under:
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1