CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Adjudication order in respect of 16 entities in the matter of Focus Industrial Resources Limited

LinkedIn


Court :
SEBI

Brief :
UNDER SECTION 15-I OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES) RULES, 199

Citation :
ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. Order/BD/AA/2020-21/9117-9132

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI’) conducted an investigation in the scrip of Focus Industrial Resources Ltd.,  (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIRL / Company’) inter-alia to ascertain any disclosure related violations by the Promoters of FIRL under Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011’) and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 1992’), during the period February 1, 2013 to July 30, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Investigation Period’ / ‘IP’).

2. Pursuant to investigation, it was observed by SEBI that the promoters of the Company viz. Pradeep Kumar Jindal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 1’), Trishla Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 2’), Satish Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 3’), Renu Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 4’), Shobha Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 5’), Satender Kumar Jain and Sons (HUF) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 6’), Anand Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 7’), S. K. Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 8’), Satender Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 9’), Mamta Jindal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 10’), Chetan Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 11’), Aanchal Jindal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 12’), Archit Jindal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 13’), Kanika (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Noticee No. 14’), Laxman Singh Satyapal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No. 15’) and Meera Mishra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee No.  16’) had violated the various provisions of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 and SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 1992 during the investigation period as below:

i) Noticee Nos. 1 to 13, as acquirers / PACs failed to make disclosures under SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 for acquisition/disposal of shares representing 2% or more of the share capital of the company on 5 instances viz., 12/03/2013, 21/03/2013, 20/04/2013, 11/05/2013 and 27/06/2013 and therefore, violated the provisions of Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) of SEBI (SAST) regulations, 2011.

ii) Noticee No. 1 to 14, as acquirers / PACs failed to make disclosures under SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 for acquisition/disposal of shares representing 2% or more of the share capital of the company on 22/07/2013 and therefore, violated the provisions of Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) of SEBI (SAST) regulations, 2011.

iii) Noticee No. 1 to 16, as acquirers / PACs failed to make disclosures under SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 for acquisition/disposal of shares representing 2% or more of the share capital of the company on 22/07/2013 and therefore, violated the provisions of Regulation 29(2) read with 29(3) of SEBI (SAST) regulations, 2011.

iv) Noticee No. 1 to 13, as acquirers / PACs failed to make open offer for acquisition of shares exceeding 5% on 27/06/2013 and therefore, violated the provisions of Regulation 3(2) of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011.

To read / download the full judgement, find the enclosed file

 

Guest
on 23 September 2020
Published in LAW
Views : 30
downloaded 12 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags