Market regulator SEBI today said it has rejected consent applications of Ramsarup Industries, its top executives and promoter entities, to settle pending proceedings against them for alleged violations of insider trading and model conduct code regulations.

The consent pleas of a total ten entities in this matter have been rejected by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the regulator said.

Those who had sought settlement of SEBI’s probe into alleged violation of stock market norms were Ramsarup Industries, its Chairman and MD Ashish Jhunjhunwala and eight other individuals, including some other top executives and promoter group entities.

Under SEBI’s consent mechanism, the companies and individuals can seek to settle the cases with the market regulator after the payment of certain charges, without admission or denial of any wrongdoings.

Providing a periodic update of the consent applications rejected by it since February 19, 2013, SEBI said that these pleas have been rejected as they were not found to be in consonance with the regulations governing Consent Mechanism.

“The pending proceedings in these cases will continue in accordance with law. The rejection of consent application, however, shall not prejudice the pending proceedings in any manner,” SEBI said.

Separately, Ramsarup Industries today said in a regulatory filing with the BSE that its board has approved resignations of Naveen Gupta and B K Jhunjhunwala as directors and that of Gajendra Kumar Singh as its Company Secretary.

The list of consent applications rejected by SEBI includes those by these three persons.

Shares of the company today fell by 1.2 per cent at the BSE to Rs 2.52.

Besides the ten applications related to Ramsarup Industries case, SEBI said it has also rejected three other consent pleas in this period.

These applications were filed by Pannalal Lalbhai Shah, Ashish Pannalal Shah and Rina Ashish Shah, against whom SEBI has initiated proceedings for non—payment of penalty imposed on them for non—compliance of market regulator’s summons.

comment COMMENT NOW