Mega Offer Avail 65% Off in CA IPCC and 50% Off in all CA CS CMA subjects.Coupon- IPCEXAM65 & EXAM50. Call: 088803-20003

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 two entities in the matter of Sterling Greenwoods 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 BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995

Citation :
[ADJUDICATION Order/GR/KG/2020-21/9390-9391]

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
[ADJUDICATION Order/GR/KG/2020-21/9390-9391]

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 BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995

In respect of
1. Shri. Anurag Dineshchandra Agrwal [PAN ACDPA4964G]
2. Paksh Developers Private Limited [PAN AAECS0872M]

In the matter of

Sterling Greenwoods Limited

Background
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI’) conducted an investigation with respect to trading in the scrip of M/s. Sterling Green Woods Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘SGWL’ or ‘the Company’) for the period April 1, 2009 to July 24, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Investigation Period’). The scrip was listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSE’) and Ahmedabad Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASE’).

2. Investigation had inter alia observed that Mr. Anurag Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Anurag Agarwal’/ “Noticee No.1”), MD of SGWL and Paksh Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paksh’/ Noticee No.2”) had played a key role in the manipulation of the price and volume of the shares. It was further noted that the Noticee No.1 had failed to make requisite disclosures under Regulation 13(1) and 13(4) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PIT Regulations’). Furthermore, Mr. Anurag Agarwal and Paksh failed to make necessary disclosures under Regulation 7(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SAST Regulations'), as well as open offer in terms of Regulation 10 of the SAST Regulations during the Investigation Period.

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 13 October 2020
Published in LAW
Views : 22
downloaded 11 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags