It was alleged that the company and its executives have violated provisions of Sebi's PIT (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations.
Accordingly, the regulator had initiated adjudication proceedings against these entities for violation of rules.
A probe by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) found that Manappuaram Finance on February 2, 2012, announced results for the quarter ended December, 2011.
Further, the company's board had approved the declaration of interim dividend for 2011-12 and fixed February 14, 2012 as record date for the purpose.
As per the rules, trading window will have to open 24 hours after the information is made public. Manappuaram Finance closed the trading window up to February 2, 2012 and not up to 24 hours after the corporate announcement as required under the norms.
Under the PIT rules, periodical financial results of the company and intended declaration of dividends (both interim and final) is price sensitive information.
It was alleged that these executives failed to implement the code of conduct of the company.
While proceedings against these entities was in progress, they had offered to settle the matter on payment of Rs 42.77 lakh as settlement fee under Sebi's consent order mechanism.
Thereafter, Sebi's High Powered Advisory Committee on consent recommended the case for settlement on the payment of the amount. This was also approved by Sebi's panel of whole-time members, following which they remitted the amount.
Individually, Manappuaram Finance and its officials -- V P Nandakumar, who was the executive chairman during the relevant period, I Unnikrishnan, former managing director, B N Raveendra Babu, former joint managing director and Rajesh Kumar, ex-compliance officer -- have paid Rs 6.8 lakh each.
Further, M Anandan, former independent director, has paid Rs 8.77 lakh in settlement fee.
Pursuant to a settlement under Sebi's consent mechanism, the market regulator said it is disposing of the adjudication proceedings initiated against the applicants.
Sebi said that enforcement actions, including commencing or reopening of the proceedings, could be initiated if any representation made by him is found to be untrue.
Under the consent mechanism, entities can seek to settle cases with the regulator after payment of certain charges and and other expenses without admission of guilt.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
