9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1888 - Board - SEBIDirectors/promoters raising money through offer and issue of Secured Non-Convertible Redeemable Debentures ( NCDs ) to public - Noticee found to be one of the past directors of GAL - contravention of the provisions of Sections 56 60 read with Sections 2(36) 73 117B and 117C of the Companies Act 1956 - expression officer who is in default under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 - Whether the Noticee is liable for the contraventions committed by the Company during his directorship? HELD THAT - From a perusal of Section 73(2) of the Companies Act it is clear that where the company which intends to offer shares to the public for subscription has not done it by issue of a prospectus or where permission has not been sought from the stock exchange the company and other directors of the company who are officers in default shall be jointly and severally liable to repay the money collected from applicants along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed. Thus it is clear that the liability to repay the amount is upon that director of the company who is an officer in default. Noticee has submitted that Mr. Paritosh Panda was the Managing Director who was in-charge of the business of the Company and the mastermind behind the issuance of the NCDs and SEBI should consider that the Company was having Managing Director who shall be responsible in respect of any violation(s) committed by the Company. It is further submitted that the Noticee is not an Officer in default under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. I note that in the Order dated June 15 2018 there is no finding that the Noticee was the Managing Director or Whole Time Director or was a person charged by the Board with the responsibility of complying with the provisions of the Companies Act and consequently could not be made responsible for refunding the amount under Section 73(2) of the Companies Act 1956. Without any finding that the Noticee is an officer in default the liability imposed under Section 73(2) cannot be invoked on him. Consequently the question of violations by the Noticee of Sections 56 60 read with Sections 2(36) Sections 117B and 117C of the Companies Act 1956 and the relevant provisions of the ILDS Regulations which inter alia pertain to registration of Prospectus and its contents appointment of debenture trustee liability to create security and debenture redemption reserve etc. and all such procedural aspects of raising money from public through NCDs does not arise. Thus the present proceedings against the Noticee are liable to be disposed of. Hence dispose of the instant proceedings against the Noticee without issuance of any direction.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
- Whether the Noticee, who was a director of the company during the period when the company issued Secured Non-Convertible Redeemable Debentures (NCDs) to the public, is liable for the contraventions committed by the company under the Companies Act, 1956 and SEBI regulations. - Whether the Noticee qualifies as an "officer who is in default" under Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956, thereby attracting joint and several liability for refund of monies collected through the NCDs along with interest under Section 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. - Whether the Noticee's claim of being a non-executive director, having no involvement in management, operations, or financial stake in the company, and having been fraudulently roped in as director, absolves him of liability. - Whether the earlier SEBI order imposing directions including refund of money and restraint from securities market activities against the Noticee is sustainable in law. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Liability of the Noticee for contraventions relating to issuance of NCDs Relevant legal framework and precedents: The company was found to have contravened Sections 56, 60 read with Sections 2(36), 73, 117B and 117C of the Companies Act, 1956, and provisions of the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008, by raising money through public issuance of NCDs without complying with statutory requirements including registration and listing permissions. Section 73(2) mandates repayment of money collected without requisite permissions, with liability extending to the company and every "officer who is in default". Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Noticee was a director of the company from March 6, 2012 to December 26, 2012, a period during which the company issued NCDs. The SEBI order held the Noticee liable on the basis of his directorship during this period. However, the Noticee contested this liability, asserting lack of involvement and knowledge. Key evidence and findings: The directorship of the Noticee was undisputed as per MCA records. However, the Noticee submitted that he was a peon working on a no work-no pay basis, had no financial interest or control, did not attend board meetings, and was not involved in the company's operations or fund mobilization activities. No documentary evidence was furnished to substantiate these claims, but the Court accepted that the Noticee was not involved in management or operations. Application of law to facts: The Court examined whether the Noticee fell within the definition of "officer who is in default" under Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956, which includes managing directors, whole-time directors, managers, secretaries, persons directing the board's actions, or those charged with compliance responsibilities. The Court noted that the company had a designated Managing Director during the relevant period, who was responsible for statutory compliance and business operations. Treatment of competing arguments: The Noticee argued that as a non-executive director without any managerial role or shareholding, he could not be held liable. The Court referred to precedents where liability could not be vicariously imposed on directors who were not officers in default or involved in day-to-day affairs, especially when a managing director was in place. The Court also considered the Noticee's submission that he was fraudulently inducted as director and had no control or benefit from the company's activities. Conclusions: Since the Noticee was not a managing director, whole-time director, or charged with compliance responsibilities, he did not qualify as an "officer who is in default". Therefore, the liability under Section 73(2) for refund of monies and other contraventions could not be imposed on him. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and definition of "officer who is in default" Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 73(2) imposes liability for repayment of money collected through public offers without requisite permissions on the company and every director who is an officer in default. Section 5 defines "officer who is in default" to include managing directors, whole-time directors, managers, secretaries, persons directing the board, or those charged with compliance. If none of these officers exist, all directors may be deemed officers in default. Precedents cited include decisions where the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) held that vicarious liability cannot be automatically imposed on all directors, especially non-executive directors not involved in management, when a managing director is responsible for compliance. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the company had a managing director during the relevant period, who was responsible for statutory compliance and operations. The Noticee was not found to be a managing or whole-time director, nor charged with compliance responsibilities. Therefore, the liability under Section 73(2) could not be extended to him. Key evidence and findings: The Court relied on the company's Memorandum and Articles of Association, MCA records, and prior judicial pronouncements to conclude that the managing director was the officer in default. The Noticee's role was limited and non-executive. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory definition strictly and distinguished the Noticee's role from those officers liable under the Act. The presence of a managing director responsible for compliance negated the applicability of joint and several liability to the Noticee. Treatment of competing arguments: The Noticee's argument that he was not an officer in default was accepted. The Court rejected the SEBI order's imposition of liability without a finding that the Noticee was an officer in default. Conclusions: The Noticee was not an officer in default under Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956, and thus not liable under Section 73(2) for refund of monies or other contraventions. Issue 3: Validity of SEBI's directions against the Noticee Relevant legal framework and precedents: SEBI's power to issue directions under Sections 11, 11A, 11B of the SEBI Act to restrain persons from securities market activities and to order refund of monies collected in contravention of securities laws. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the Noticee was not liable under the Companies Act provisions and was not an officer in default, the basis for SEBI's directions including refund of monies, restraint from securities market access, and prohibition on association with listed or public companies was unsustainable. Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the absence of any finding in the SEBI order that the Noticee was involved in management or was an officer in default. The Noticee's submissions and precedents were considered to conclude that SEBI erred in imposing directions against him. Application of law to facts: Without establishing liability under the Companies Act or SEBI regulations, SEBI could not impose the directions. The Court found that the Noticee's role was limited and he was not responsible for the contraventions. Treatment of competing arguments: The Noticee's submissions about lack of involvement, no financial stake, and being a non-executive director were accepted. The Court relied on SAT precedents where similar relief was granted to directors not involved in day-to-day management. Conclusions: The SEBI directions against the Noticee were set aside and the proceedings disposed of without any directions. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Where the Company had a designated Managing Director who was responsible for statutory compliance and business operations, a non-executive director who was not involved in day-to-day management, had no financial stake, and was not charged with compliance responsibilities, cannot be held liable as an 'officer who is in default' under Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956." "Liability under Section 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for refund of monies collected through public issuance of securities without requisite permissions extends only to the company and those directors who are officers in default. Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on all directors indiscriminately." "SEBI's power to issue directions against persons involved in securities law contraventions must be exercised based on findings of liability under the relevant statutory provisions. Absent such findings, directions including restraint from securities market access and refund orders cannot be sustained." "The impugned order imposing liability and directions against the Noticee, who was a non-executive director with no involvement in management or compliance, is quashed and the proceedings are disposed of without any directions."
|
