Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 9.2.2022 Appeal No.60 of 2022 Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma R/o. C-6, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi- 110092. ...Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051. ...Respondent Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Mr. Kushal Shah, Authorised Representative i/b. Prakash Shah & Associates for the Appellant. Mr. Abhishek Khare, Advocate i/b. Khare Legal Chambers for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present appeal has been filed against the order 2 dated 23rd November, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Officer imposing a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for violation of Regulations 29(2) and 29(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAST Regulations').

2. We find that the appellant admits that he was a person acting in concert and had transferred shares to his relative who was also a promoter in the Company. As a result of transfer of the shares disclosure requirements under Regulations 29(2) and 29(3) of the SAST Regulations got triggered. Such disclosure was required to be made within two working days. The appellant did not make any disclosure even though the transferee did make the disclosure. The fact remains 3 that the appellant violated the provisions of Section Regulations 29(2) and 29(3) of the SAST Regulations and was accordingly penalised. 3. The only contention raised was there was no other violation and, therefore, the quantum of penalty should be reduced to the minimum of at least Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the opinion that the quantum of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer is neither harsh nor arbitrary and is appropriate in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, we do not find any manifest error requiring any modification. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

5. The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a 4 certified copy of this order could be issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member RAJALA Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI 9.2.2022 KSHMI HDate: