Promoter group offloads 30% stake in two quarters, SEBI finds

This order addresses allegations that 20 promoter and promoter group entities of Ultracab (India) Ltd failed to submit required disclosures to the stock exchange regarding significant changes in their aggregate shareholding between September and December 2023.

Who it concerns: Ultracab (India) Ltd (the company), and 20 specific individuals and entities including Sangeetaben Niteshbhai Vaghasiya, Nitesh Parshottambhai Vaghasiya, Artiben Pankajkumar Shingala, Nitaben Pravinbhai Shingala, Nitesh P Vaghasiya (HUF), Parshottambhai Laljibhai Vaghasiya, Yogeshbhai Govindbhai Ramani, Govindbhai Karsanbhai Ramani, Arvindbhai Parshotambhai Vaghasiya, Ramnik Parsotambhai Vaghasiya, Jayaben Parshotambhai Vaghasiya, Pravinkumar Hardasbhai Shingala, Muktaben Govindbhai Ramani, Vasantbhai Hardasbhai Shingala, Pankaj Vasantbhai Shingala, Gopalbhai Hardasbhai Shingala, Kanchanben Vasantbhai Shingala, Vasantbhai H Shingala (HUF), Pravinkumar Hardasbhai Shingala (P), and Niteen Bhikhubhai Khatra.

What SEBI found or ordered

• SEBI alleged violations of Regulation 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011.
• Promoter group shareholding dropped from 62.12% to 27.90% between June 2023 and December 2023.
• SEBI identified 12 instances where the change in aggregate shareholding exceeded 2%, triggering mandatory disclosure requirements.
• The stock exchange confirmed it did not receive the requisite manual disclosures from the noticees.
• The order is an adjudication proceeding under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992, aimed at determining liability and imposing monetary penalties.

Also in the document

• The scale of the shareholding change was significant, with the promoter group offloading approximately 30% of their stake in two quarters.
• The noticees argued that the non-filing was unintentional and that information was available in the public domain via quarterly shareholding patterns, but SEBI maintained that specific manual disclosures were required and missing.
• The document provided is truncated and does not contain the final decision on whether the violations were proven or the specific monetary penalties imposed.