{"id":237804,"date":"2020-10-21T12:30:09","date_gmt":"2020-10-21T07:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=237804"},"modified":"2020-10-23T11:33:00","modified_gmt":"2020-10-23T06:03:00","slug":"sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/","title":{"rendered":"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): <\/strong>Justice Tarun Agarwal allowed the appeal and substituted the penalty imposed by the impugned order with a warning.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case are such that the appellant in the instant case is National Highway Authority of India i.e. NHAI an autonomous body set up by the Parliament under \u2018NHAI Act\u2019. It is also listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange and is subject to the provisions of the (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 i.e. LODR Regulations, 2015. Regulation 52(1) of the LODR Regulations, 2015 mandates filing of the unaudited half-yearly financial results within 45 days from the end of the half financial year. An extension application under Regulation 102 of LODR Regulation 2015 was filed on two occasions with a\u00a0 procedural fee of Rs 1 lakh pursuant to which SEBI asked for certain clarification which were given therewith yet the request was rejected. The appellants failing which, as there was a delay in filing the half-yearly financial results for the period ending 30-09- 2018 and 31-03-2019, has been slapped with a penalty of Rs 7 lakh by SEBI Board vide order dated 26-05-2020. Being aggrieved by the said order present appeal has been filed.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the petitioners Rajesh Ranjan and Neeraj Matta submitted that the delay was a procedural delay which was beyond the control of the officers of NHAI as the NHAI body constituted under the NHAI Act mandates the composition to be from among the high level secretaries from the Union Ministries which makes it difficult for regular meetings to be convened due to lack of adequate quorum and it is also mandated under Regulation 4 of NHAI (Transaction of Business) Regulations, 1997 that no meeting of the Board would be legal or valid unless it was approved by two-third of the members failing which even after the financial results being ready on time it could not been signed and submitted\/ furnished. It was further submitted that in view of Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018SEBI Act\u2019) no proceedings could have been initiated for imposing penalty under Section 15A of the SEBI Act unless and until the Officers in default were identified and prosecuted under Section 27 of the Act. It was also submitted that the extension application was rejected without giving proper reasons for doing so and hence is against principles of natural justice and Section 15 J was not taken into consideration before imposing penalty.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondents Abhiraj Arora and Rashi Dalmia opposed the submissions by petitioners stating that the penalty has been imposed as per Regulation 52 of the LODR Regulations and there being no provision for relaxation, relaxation has not been granted and penalty imposed keeping in mind that such callousness has been shown by NHAI on previous 7 instances and thereby 7 Lakh has been imposed.<\/p>\n

Regulation 52(1) \u201cFinancial Results<\/em><\/strong>. <\/em><\/p>\n

52(1) The listed entity shall prepare and submit un-audited or audited financial results on a half yearly basis in the format as specified by the Board within forty five days from the end of the half year to the recognised stock exchange(s).\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Regulation 102 \u201cPower to relax strict enforcement of the regulations. <\/em><\/strong>102.The Board may in the interest of investors and securities market and for the development of the securities market, relax the strict enforcement of any requirement of these regulations, if the Board is satisfied that: (a) any provision of Act(s), Rule(s), regulation(s) under which the listed entity is established or is governed by, is required to be given precedence to; or (b) the requirement may cause undue hardship to investors; or (c) the disclosure requirement is not relevant for a particular industry or class of listed entities; or (d) the requirement is technical in nature; or (e) the non-compliance is caused due to factors affecting a class of entities but being beyond the control of the entities<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Tribunal stated that in the instant case penalty became leviable under Section 15A (b) of the SEBI Act as the unaudited half-yearly financial results were not filed within the stipulated period. The Tribunal observed that prosecution under Section 27 of the SEBI Act can be initiated against the Company and its Directors\/Officers and persons responsible for the default but penalty proceedings can be initiated under Section 15A for non-filing of the financial results without taking recourse to Sec. 27 of the Act. However, there is an exception to the rule and exemption can be granted by extending the time to comply with the provisions Regulation 102 of the LODR Regulations. It was further observed that the Appellate Authority consists of senior government functionaries who are entrusted with multifarious functions in the Union Government and hence strict compliance must be subject to consideration for the extension of time under Regulation 102 of the LODR Regulations.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal held that imposing 7 lakh as penalty without assigning reasons as well as the reason cited by the authorities that the amount so fined is due to his default 7 times is wholly arbitrary as not filing the financial results for the financial years 2015-2016 to 2018-2019 cannot be taken into consideration as a ground for imposition as the violation was only for non-filing of the unaudited half-yearly financial results for the year ending 30-09-2018 and 31-03-2019. The delay in the filing of the returns for the earlier financial years stood exempted and condoned by the respondent themselves which cannot be taken as a mitigating circumstance for the imposition of penalty.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal also relied on judgment titled Adjudicating Officer, SEBI v. Bhavesh Pabari,<\/em> (2019) 5 SCC 90<\/a> which held that the conditions stipulated in clause (a), (b), and (c) of Section 15-J SEBI Act, 1992 are not exhaustive and, in a given case, the AO can take note of other factors which are not specified in clause (a), (b), and (c) of Section 15-J of the Act. The Adjudicating Officer also could have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances in addition to the factors mentioned under Section 15J while considering the imposition of penalty.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Officer failed to take into consideration the mitigating circumstances as a factor under Section 15-J while considering the imposition of penalty.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Court allowed the appeal and found the imposition of Rs 7 lakhs as unsustainable.[National Highway Authority of India v. Securities Exchange Board of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SAT 158<\/b><\/a>, decided on 27-08-2020]<\/p>\n

\n

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Justice Tarun Agarwal allowed the appeal and substituted the penalty imposed by the impugned order with a warning. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":209781,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[31683,2627,15441,2563,37170],"class_list":["post-237804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-nhai","tag-Penalty","tag-sat","tag-SEBI","tag-stock-exchange"],"yoast_head":"\nSAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Justice Tarun Agarwal allowed the appeal and substituted the penalty imposed by the impugned order with a warning.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-10-21T07:00:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-23T06:03:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/\",\"name\":\"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-10-21T07:00:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-23T06:03:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed","og_description":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Justice Tarun Agarwal allowed the appeal and substituted the penalty imposed by the impugned order with a warning.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-10-21T07:00:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-10-23T06:03:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/","name":"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","datePublished":"2020-10-21T07:00:09+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-23T06:03:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/21\/sat-s-15j-sebi-act-1992-may-not-apply-in-adjudication-proceedings-involving-penalty-under-s-15a-sebi-act-1992-while-determining-the-quantum-of-penalty-appeal-allowed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SAT | S. 15J SEBI Act, 1992 may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under S. 15A SEBI Act, 1992 while determining the quantum of penalty, Appeal allowed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":255636,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/15\/does-the-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-apply-to-defaults-under-sebi-lodr-regulations\/","url_meta":{"origin":237804,"position":0},"title":"Does the doctrine of Double Jeopardy apply to defaults under SEBI (LODR) Regulations?","author":"Editor","date":"October 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"By Abhishek Kale* and Darshan Furia**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245918,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/22\/stock-exchange\/","url_meta":{"origin":237804,"position":1},"title":"SAT | Separate penalties by the stock exchanges can be imposed | While positing, rejects appeal","author":"Editor","date":"March 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): A Coram of Tarun Agarwala, J., (Presiding Officer) and M.T. Joshi, J., (Judicial Member) while dismissing an appeal held that separate penalties by the stock exchanges could be imposed. In the present matter, BSE and NSE separately imposed a penalty of Rs 12 lakh for violation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":271319,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/06\/sat-directions-of-debarment-and-the-penalty-imposed-by-whole-time-member-held-to-be-harsh-and-excessive-penalty-reduced-by-75\/","url_meta":{"origin":237804,"position":2},"title":"SAT | Directions of debarment and the penalty imposed by Whole time Member held to be harsh and excessive ; Penalty reduced by 75%","author":"Editor","date":"August 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT): While dealing with the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order dated 08-06-2021 of the Whole Time Member (\u2018WTM'), the Coram of Tarun Agarwala, J. (Presiding Officer), M.T. Joshi, J. (Judicial Member), Meera Swarup (Technical Member) held that the directions of debarment\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"SAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-401.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-401.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-401.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-401.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-401.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243475,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/06\/sat-undue-delay-is-a-mitigating-factor-while-imposing-a-penalty-under-s-15j-of-the-sebi-act-appeal-allowed\/","url_meta":{"origin":237804,"position":3},"title":"SAT | Undue delay is a mitigating factor while imposing a penalty under S. 15J of the SEBI Act; Appeal allowed","author":"Editor","date":"February 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer, Dr C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice and M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member affirmed the impugned order directing each of the appellants to pay a sum of Rs 1 lakh to the respondent within four weeks from the day of the order. The facts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325002,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/24\/delineating-the-scope-and-nature-of-disgorgement-under-securities-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":237804,"position":4},"title":"Delineating the Scope and Nature of Disgorgement Under Securities Law","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shuchi Agrawal\u2020 and Snigdha Kajaria\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delineating the Scope and Nature of Disgorgement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Delineating-the-Scope-and-Nature-of-Disgorgement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Delineating-the-Scope-and-Nature-of-Disgorgement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Delineating-the-Scope-and-Nature-of-Disgorgement.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Delineating-the-Scope-and-Nature-of-Disgorgement.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6788,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/24\/actual-lose-to-the-investors-is-not-pre-requisite-for-penalty-on-non-disclosure-under-takeover-regulations\/","url_meta":{"origin":237804,"position":5},"title":"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 24, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Security and Exchange Board of India: The security market regulator imposed penalty of Rs. 4,50,000 on M\/s. Khatau Exim Limited (the company) for non compliance with Takeover Regulation, 1997 and Sec. 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992. The company was found guilty for not to make annual filing to the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"","block_context":{"text":"Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237804\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/209781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}