{"id":6788,"date":"2015-09-24T14:09:00","date_gmt":"2015-09-24T14:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6788"},"modified":"2015-10-14T16:00:51","modified_gmt":"2015-10-14T10:30:51","slug":"actual-lose-to-the-investors-is-not-pre-requisite-for-penalty-on-non-disclosure-under-takeover-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"<p ><b><span lang=\"EN-GB\">Security and Exchange Board of <st1:country-region w:st=\"on\"><st1:place w:st=\"on\">India<\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region>: <\/span><\/b><span lang=\"EN-GB\">The security market regulator imposed penalty of <\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">Rs. 4,50,000<\/span><b><span lang=\"EN-US\"> <\/span><\/b><span lang=\"EN-GB\">on <\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">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 stock Exchanges where the company\u2019s shares were listed in respect of the holdings of the promoters or person(s) having control over the company. <o:p><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n<p ><span lang=\"EN-US\">The adjudicating officer of SEBI while considering the quantum of penalty relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in <i>SEBI v. &nbsp;Shri Ram Mutual Fund <\/i>in which it was ruled that, \u201c<i>penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of the statutory obligation as contemplated by the Act and the Regulations is established and hence the intention of the parties committing such violation becomes wholly irrelevant\u2026\u201d. <\/i>&nbsp;The adjudicating officer observed that even if the regulator fails to establish intention behind non-disclosure penalty may be imposed. &nbsp;The adjudicating officer further opined that, \u201c<i>the argument put forth by the Noticee that there is no question of any gain or advantage that has accrued, let alone any disproportionate gain or unfair advantage and that the alleged delay was without any malafide intention is also not relevant for the given case<\/i>\u201d. It follows as held by SAT in <i>Komal Nahata v. SEBI <\/i>that penalty for non compliance of the Takeover Regulations, 1997 is not dependent upon the investors actually suffering on account of such non disclosure. <i>Adjudication Order in the matter of M\/s. Khatau Exim Limited,<\/i> ORDER NO.AK\/AO-74\/2015, decided on 22.10.2015<o:p><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"EN-US\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations | 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\/2015\/09\/24\/actual-lose-to-the-investors-is-not-pre-requisite-for-penalty-on-non-disclosure-under-takeover-regulations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"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\/\" \/>\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=\"2015-09-24T14:09:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-14T10:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.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=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"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\":\"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\/\",\"name\":\"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-09-24T14:09:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-14T10:30:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"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\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations | 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\/2015\/09\/24\/actual-lose-to-the-investors-is-not-pre-requisite-for-penalty-on-non-disclosure-under-takeover-regulations\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations","og_description":"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)","og_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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2015-09-24T14:09:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-14T10:30:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"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":"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\/","name":"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2015-09-24T14:09:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-14T10:30:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"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\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["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\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"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\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"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\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Actual Lose to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":246716,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/08\/reliance\/","url_meta":{"origin":6788,"position":0},"title":"SEBI | Reliance m\u00e9nage in trouble; Irregular shareholding, default in trading regulations | Obtruded with a \u20b9 25 crore penalty","author":"Editor","date":"April 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): K Saravanan, Adjudicating authority, imposed a penalty of Rs 2 crore on Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL), while making the noticees responsible not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of the minor noticees, being their natural guardians. The issue herein was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"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":6788,"position":1},"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 &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":252748,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/16\/sebi-failure-to-furnish-the-mandate-results-in-restriction-from-the-market-which-became-a-mandate-thereafter\/","url_meta":{"origin":6788,"position":2},"title":"SEBI | Failure to furnish the mandate results in restriction from the market which became a mandate thereafter","author":"Editor","date":"August 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Ananta Barua, Whole Time Member while exercising the powers conferred under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11(4A), 11A and 11B(1), 11B(2) and Section 12A(1) of SCRA, 1956 read with Section 19 and 11(2)(j) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Rule 5 of the SEBI (Procedure\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":237804,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":6788,"position":3},"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","author":"Editor","date":"October 21, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Justice Tarun Agarwal allowed the appeal and substituted the penalty imposed by the impugned order with a warning. 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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":213320,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/05\/sat-no-disproportionate-gain-or-unfair-advantage-made-nor-any-loss-caused-to-the-investors-by-non-disclosure-penalty-reduced\/","url_meta":{"origin":6788,"position":4},"title":"SAT | No disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made, nor any loss caused to the investors by non-disclosure, penalty reduced","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The Coram of Tarun Agarwala, J., (Presiding Officer), Dr C.K.G. Nair, (Member), M.T. Joshi, J., (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeals which were filed against the order which imposed a penalty on the appellants for not following Regulation 7(2) (a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":329280,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/23\/sebi-imposes-monetary-penalty-on-anil-ambani-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":6788,"position":5},"title":"SEBI bans Reliance Home Finance Limited and 23 other entities for 5 years; imposes penalty of Rs. 25 crores on each entity","author":"Kriti","date":"August 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"SEBI penalizes Anil Ambani for siphoning of funds from public listed companies, RHFL","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legislation Updates&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"penalty on Anil Ambani","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/penalty-on-Anil-Ambani.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/penalty-on-Anil-Ambani.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/penalty-on-Anil-Ambani.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/penalty-on-Anil-Ambani.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6788","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6788\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}