Individual settles case with Sebi for violating mkt norms while dealing in Titan's scrip

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

An individual has settled with Sebi a case of alleged violation of insider trading norms while trading in the scrip of Titan Company, by paying Rs 3.6 lakh towards settlement charges.

As per the settlement order, the individual --Suparna Mitra-- had allegedly delayed making disclosures related to change in her shareholding in Titan, under Prohibition of Insider Trading (PIT) norms.

In May 2018, Mitra executed multiple trades in the shares of Titan, the value of which aggregated to Rs 18.35 lakh. Since the value of the trades exceeded Rs 10 lakh, the trades were required to be disclosed to the company under PIT norms within two working days.

"However, it was observed during the investigation that the same was disclosed only on October 24, 2018 with a delay of 151 days," Sebi noted in an order dated March 20.

Before initiating the proceedings in this regard, Sebi issued a notice to the individual intimating that the proceedings may be settled and disposed of upon filing of a settlement application.

Therefore, Mitra, without admitting or denying the findings of fact and conclusions of law, filed a settlement application with Sebi and proposed to pay over Rs 3.6 lakh.

The amount was remitted on February 20, 2020, Sebi said.

As per a separate order, Mohammed Naveen Ajmal also settled a case with Sebi by paying Rs 3 lakh for allegedly making delayed disclosures with respect to change in shareholding in Sonata Software Ltd.

Ajmal executed trades in the scrip of Sonata, aggregating to Rs 35.9 lakh and made disclosures about the same after a delay of 48 days.

However, upon filing a settlement application with Sebi, Ajmal remitted Rs 3 lakh on February 18, 2020 towards settlement charges.

"The proposed proceedings that could have been initiated for the defaults ...are settled qua the applicant," Sebi said in similarly worded separate orders.

Sebi can commence the proceedings if any representation made by the applicant in the present settlement proceedings is subsequently found to be untrue, the regulator noted in both the orders.