Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Soma Majumdar, Adjudicating Officer, in six separate Adjudication Orders, while holding the Noticees liable for the alleged acts as per the submissions and the factors mentioned in Section 15J of the SEBI Act, 1992 (the Act) imposed a penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- each, under Section 15A(b) of the Act.
In the instant matter Titan Company Limited (TCL) intimated SEBI about the contravention of SEBI (Prevention of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (PIT Regulations) and Company’s Code of Conduct for Prevention of Insider Trading by some of its designated persons/employees. After which, SEBI conducted an investigation in the scrip of TCL and observed certain violations by the designated persons of TCL.
The investigation revealed that the Noticees had traded in the shares of Titan during the period. Details of their trading are as under:-
| Calendar Quarter | Traded value at NSE Cash segment (Rs.) | Traded value at NSE Derivatives segment (Rs.)
|
Traded value at BSE cash segment (Rs.) | Total traded value (BSE +NSE) (Rs.)
|
| Jayraj P.
April to June 2018 |
1,79,267
|
28,74,413 | 0 | 30,53,680
|
| Arjun Vishwakarma
April to June 2018 |
40,62,132 | 0 | 0 | 40,62,132
|
| Mekat George
April to June 2018
|
23,58,143
|
0 | 3,68,573 | 27,26,177
|
| Punit Juneja
April to June 2018 |
0 | 32,50,200 | 0 | 32,50,200 |
|
Muniraj Radhakrishnan
April to June 2018 |
37,826
|
33, 03,600 |
0 |
33,41,426
|
| Gangadhar Sudheer Kallihal
|
11,57,850 | 0 | 0 | 11,57,850
|
| July to September 2018
|
19,32,221 | 0 | 0 | 19,32,221 |
Therefore, the issues before the Tribunal were:
1) Whether the Noticees have violated Regulation 7(2) (a) of PIT Regulations?
2) Does the violation, if any, attract monetary penalty under Section 15A (b) of the Act?
3) If yes, then what should be the quantum of monetary penalty?
The Noticees had contended that they were not aware about the Act, PIT regulations and the Company’s code of conduct for prevention of insider trading.
Answering in affirmation and denying the submissions so put forth by the Noticees, the Tribunal stated,
“As postulated by legal maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’, ignorance of law is no excuse and everyone is presumed to know the law of the land. A person cannot defend his illegal actions by stating that he was not aware his actions were illegal, even if he honestly believed that they were not breaking the law”.
[Titan Company Limited, In re, Order/SM/DD/2021-22/ 13075, decided on 24-08-2021]
Combined Adjudication Order for:
Order/SM/DD/2021-22/ 13075
Order/SM/DD/2021-22/13074
Order/SM/DD/2021-22/ 13073
Order/SM/DD/2021-22/ 13076
Order/SM/DD/2021-22/ 13072
Order/SM/DD/2021-22/13078
Agatha Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.