Covidh Technologies Limited (Formerly ... vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 23/04/2018

Misc. Application No.83 of 2018 And Appeal No.93 of 2018

Covidh Technologies Limited (formerly 'Aptus Industries Limited') Plot No.458, Ground Floor, Road No.19, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad TG - 500 033. ... Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India Plot No.C4-A, 'G' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent

Mr. Hasmukh Ravaria, Advocate i/b Juris Link for the Appellant.

Mr. Karan Bhosale a/w Mr. Chirag Bhavsar and Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Advocates i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

Misc. Application No.83 of 2018 in Appeal No.93 of 2018:-

1.

By this Misc. Application, Appellant seeks condonation of 90

days delay in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the Misc.

Application, delay is condoned. Misc. Application is disposed of

accordingly.

2

Appeal No.93 of 2018:-

2. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the

Adjudicating Officer ("AO", for short) of Securities and Exchange

Board of India ("SEBI", for short) on 13th October, 2017. By the said

order, penalty of Rs.8 lac is imposed on the appellant under section

15A(b) of SEBI Act, 1992 for failure to make timely disclosures under

Regulation 13(6) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading)

Regulations, 1992 ("PIT Regulations", for short).

3. Arguments advanced by Counsel for the appellant that the delay

in making disclosures was due to delay in receiving disclosures from

the promoters cannot be accepted because, firstly, the appellant by its e-

mail dated 10/4/2015 admitted that the allegations made in the show-

cause notice were true and that the disclosures were not made within

the prescribed time. Secondly, in para 15 of the impugned order, it is

recorded that the promoters had made timely disclosures to the

company under the PIT Regulations and that the company while

making the filings under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares

and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 had failed to make disclosures under

the PIT Regulations within the stipulated time. In these circumstances,

argument that there was delay in receiving disclosures from the

promoters cannot be accepted.

3

4. Admittedly, the delay in making disclosures relate to 13 sale

transactions effected by the promoters. Thus, delay in making

disclosures relating to 13 transactions constitutes 13 violations.

5. Penalty imposable under Section 15A(b) of SEBI Act for each

violation is up to Rs.One crore and therefore penalty imposable for 13

violations would be up to Rs.13 crore. However, the AO after taking

into consideration all the mitigating factors has imposed penalty of Rs.8

lac which cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive.

6. In the result, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is

hereby dismissed. SEBI is at liberty to recover the amount with interest

with effect from 28th November, 2017 i.e. 45 days after the date of the

impugned order. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

23/04/2018 prepared & compared by-dg