Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Mrs. Komal Nahata vs Sebi on 27 January, 2014
8. Third contention of the appellants is that no loss has occurred to any
investor due to non disclosure under Regulation 8(3). Very same argument
was raised in case of Mrs. Komal Nahata (supra) and the said argument was
rejected by recording a finding that the mandatory disclosures under the
respective regulations framed by the SEBI have to be complied with,
irrespective of the fact that the investors have actually suffered on account
of non disclosures or not. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal,
above argument of the appellants cannot be sustained.
M/S. Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. vs Sebi on 3 November, 2014
6. Reliance placed by counsel for appellants on the decision of this
Tribunal in case of Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. (supra) is also misplaced,
because, in para 6 of that decision it is specifically recorded that the
appellant therein had made disclosures in the past, whereas in these three
cases, it is admitted that no disclosures were made.
Comfort Fincap Limited vs Sebi on 25 June, 2014
In view of the aforesaid Larger
Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of Comfort Fincap Ltd. (Supra),
first contention of the appellants that the AO was not justified in imposing
penalty for not making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) inspite of there
being no trading on account of the Stock Exchanges being non functional,
cannot be accepted. Moreover, the AO has recorded specific finding in all
three cases, that the appellants had contended that there were no trading in
shares at Delhi Stock Exchange from July 2003. It is not the case of the
appellants, that the said finding is erroneous. In any event, whether the
trading had taken place or not once it is accepted that there is violation of
Regulation of 8(3), then the appellants cannot escape penal liability.
1