|
Advanced Search Options
SEBI - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 173 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2021 (1) TMI 995 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH
Levy of penalty for Non disclosures as required under the LODR Regulations - appellant had issued non-convertible debenture securities - CIRP proceedings were ongoing - penalty imposed for violating Regulations 52(4) and 54(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 ( 'LODR Regulations, 2015' - whether the impugned order imposing penalty upon the appellant for alleged contravention during the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan could be passed by the adjudicating officer? - HELD THAT:- In clear terms of the resolution plan, the show cause notice could not be issued to the appellant for the alleged contravention relating to the period prior to the acquisition and, consequently, the impugned order could not be passed against the appellant. What cou....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 982 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Violator indulging in serous act of misusing client's securities - appellant was expelled from the membership of the respondent exchange and also declared as a defaulter - HELD THAT:- All the violations are admitted by him. No reply was submitted to the show cause notice issued regaring violation noted in the inspection for the year 2017-18. Considering the request of the appellant that he wanted to surrender his license afer redressing the complaints the investors, the Committee of respondent no. 1 time and again granted him time in hearing of the proceedings.Ultimately finding that the complaints were not resolved completely the impugned order was passed. As seen that after declaration of the appellant as a defaulter more complaints of the investors are pouring in with the respondent nos.1 and 2. The appellant was earlier penalized ....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 761 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Fraud by the company - Liability of directors - Concealing and suppressing the material facts as in violation of the provisions of Section 12A of SEBI Act - Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market - WTM directing the company to take steps for refund of the money from Banco and also debarred the appellant from accessing the securities market for a period of 5 years - HELD THAT:- The submissions so made are beyond the pleadings and cannot be taken into consideration. The respondent cannot be allowed to better their case and rely upon such documents which are not part of the record. There is no finding that the appellant, being a director for more than 10 years, was deemed to be involved in the day-to-day affairs and management of the Company nor there is any finding that the appellant was chairman ....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 390 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Violation of Equity Listing Agreement clauses - whether the information relating to signing of a Binding Implementation Agreement ('Binding Agreement' for short) by an Authorized Executive Director of the appellant with the dominant Shareholders of the Bank of Rajasthan was liable to be disclosed on an immediate basis under clause 36 of the Listing Agreement and Regulation 12(2) of the PIT Regulations, 1992? - Penalty imposed of ₹ 5 lakh each on the appellant - contentions of the appellant on the inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice and in passing the impugned order by respondent SEBI - HELD THAT:- The signed Binding Agreement in question was price sensitive and admittedly material to the performance of the appellant and needed to be disclosed on an immediate basis which was not done. On the basis of interpretat....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 219 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Determination of the ownership of the securities - As stressed that the appellant is holding securities worth more than ₹ 90 crores given by Respondent No. 2 and the impugned direction is relating to only securities worth ₹ 34 crores - HELD THAT:- After perusing certain documents placed before us, without going into the detailed legalities and merit of the matter, we pass the following interim directions:- (a) The parties shall appear before NSE, either physically or through Video Conference, on June 24, 2020. NSE shall give the contact details and arrangements for the said meeting to the parties at least one day in advance. (b) Based on the database of NSE and other parties rights in respect of the securities in question shall be reconciled/determined within one week thereafter. (c) This Tribunal will hear the matter further ....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 188 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Whole Time Member restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market - securities of the appellant in its demat account has also been frozen for the same period - appellant is a trader and investor in the capital market - HELD THAT:- Appellant had only executed one trade out of 983 trades, we are of the opinion that the penalty of debarring the appellant for six months is wholly unwarranted and cannot be sustained. Finding that 13 entities were acting as a homogenous group and were connected to each other and had executed the trades in a premeditated manner with a sole purpose of manipulating the price is not applicable in so far as the appellant is concerned. The finding that other notices were taking turns on different trading days with a premeditated motive to raise the LTP of the scrip is not applicable in the appellant....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 332 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH
Interpretation of Statute - Whether Section 14 and 238 of IBC 2016 have an overriding effect on the provision of Section 28 of SEBI Act? - HELD THAT:- IBC which is a complete code in itself was enacted in the year 2016 and the law makers after considering the various acts prevailing at that time have framed the IBC to have a faster resolution process at par with developed countries with the primary objective of maximisation of value of assets to all stake holders. The preamble of IBC clearly mentions that the objective of the Code is maximisation of value of assets, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interest of all stake holders in a time bound manner, whereas the primary object of SEBI is to protect the interest of the investors in securities market and to promote the development to regulate the securiti....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 386 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Unpublished price sensitive information being shared on a messaging platform 'Whatsapp' - whether the appellant is entitled for inspection and for supply of all the documents in possession of the adjudicating authority including those documents upon which no reliance has been placed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO') of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' )? - HELD THAT:- Concept of fairness and principles of natural justice are in-built in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1995 and that the AO is required to supply the documents relied upon while serving the show cause notice. This is essential for the person to file an efficacious reply in his defence. The contention that the appellant is entitled for copies of all the documents in possession of the AO which has not been relied upon at the preliminary stage w....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 324 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Guilty of causing false media report causing the rise in the price of the scrip - temporary prohibitory order - WTM directing the present appellants to disgorge an amount of ₹ 22,69,461/-along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from December 22, 2008 - HELD THAT:- Appellants submitted that there is a delay in the proceeding, the documents filed by the appellants themselves would show that before the WTM they were pressing time and again for more documents from the respondents before filing reply to the show cause notice. Even though a compact disk was supplied to them the demand continued which ultimately led to filing of reply belatedly. Though the practice of keeping temporary prohibitory order continuing for a long period cannot be accepted, it is to be noted that ultimately the said order is revoked. Therefore, the issue....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 238 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Acquisition of the shares by promoters - increase in the collective shareholding of all the appellants - the promoters, from 29.42% to 61.10% which was more than threshold limit of 5% - no public announcement was made - violation of provisions of Regulation 3(2) read with Regulation 13(1) of the SAST Regulations, 2011 - HELD THAT:- There should be common objective of purchase of shares or voting rights amongst the members to make them persons acting in concert. In the present case, while two promoters had an objective to dispose of their shares, the appellant No. 1 Susheel Somani had an objective to acquire the shares. This itself would show that there was no common cause between the appellant No. 1 Susheel Somani and the two transferors. Therefore, though the promoter group holdings in the company remained constant, the same would be irr....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 167 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market - Monetary penalties imposed on them under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 - HELD THAT:- SEBI was doing investigation during the interim and some delay though has happened on account of change in the AO. Though the impugned order deals with trading in the name of the minor, no action has been rightly contemplated against the minor. As regards the other noticees/appellants on appeal before us we note that though their relationship through common address, common mobile numbers etc. are matters of record and proved no motive has been attributed to their trading pattern. New LTP, NHP and a few first trades in the scrip have been created/done by these appellants which would prima facie points towards a manipulative effort. It is on record that the scrip was p....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 90 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Inordinate delay in the issuance of the show cause notice for violation of Section 12(A)(a), (b) and (c) read with Regulations 3(a),(b),(c) & (d) and 4(1), (4(2)(a) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations - delay of 7 years in issuing the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- There has been an inordinate delay in the issuance of the show cause notice. Even though there is no period of limitation prescribed in the Act and Regulations in the issuance of a show cause notice or for completion of the adjudication proceedings the authority is required to exercise its powers within a reasonable period as held recently in Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Bhavesh Pabari [2019 (3) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT]. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the power to adjudicate has not been exercised within a reasonable period and ....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 31 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Restrained orders from accessing the securities market or dealing with the securities market directly or indirectly - BSE Limited ('BSE') was directed to appoint an independent auditor/audit firm for conducting a detailed forensic audit of the books of account of Ricoh India Limited - prima facie suspicion and vicarious liability attributable to a MD/CEO - HELD THAT:- The impugned order (quoted at paragraph 5 and 6 of this order) bring out only a suspicion about the role of the appellants. Moreover, we note that though the submissions of the appellants have been noted in detail in the impugned order they have not been dealt with appropriately. Question before us is how long the appellants would be kept out of the market through directions contained in an interim order and confirmatory order which are based on only a prima facie su....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 7 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Insider trading - circumstantial evidence as to whether a person is guilty of insider trading - HELD THAT:- Appellant had passed on the price sensitive information regarding the open offer to the Tippees. Such inference taken from the immediate and proximate facts and circumstances surrounding the events is reasonable and logical which any prudent man would arrive at such a conclusion. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiyalal Patel 2017 (9) TMI 1269 - SUPREME COURT held that an inferential conclusion from proved and admitted facts would be permissible and legally justified so long as the same is reasonable. In the light of the aforesaid, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant on the issue that a person cannot be held guilty only on the strength of proximity of relationship with the Tippee are distinguishable on facts and are....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 693 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Orders for release of securities - learned senior counsel sought intervention of this Tribunal to stay such orders as well as to allow the appellant to dispose of the securities worth ₹ 21.62 crores and thereafter releasing the remaining securities given by Respondent No. 2 to the appellant - HELD THAT:- We pass the following interim directions - The parties shall appear before NSE, either physically or through Video Conference, on June 24, 2020. NSE shall give the contact details and arrangements for the said meeting to the parties at least one day in advance. (b) Based on the database of NSE and other parties rights in respect of the securities in question shall be reconciled/determined within one week thereafter. (c) This Tribunal will hear the matter further on Friday, July 03, 2020. In the interim status quo shall be maintained....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 646 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Withhold of money by SEBI - penalty for violation of Regulations 3 and 4 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - During the pendency of the appeal, the Recovery Officer of SEBI recovered an amount - HELD THAT:- Once the order of the AO imposing a penalty was set aside, there was no justification for SEBI to withhold any amount which was recovered pursuant to the order of the AO. Such retention of the amount after the order of the AO has been set aside, is without any authority of law. The fact that no direction for refund of the amount was issued by the Tribunal is immaterial. Once the order has been set aside, there is no amount to be recovered and consequently any amount so recovered has to be refunded immediately. Respondent has a....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 284 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Reversal trades - manipulative and unfair trading - 5 Entities restrained from accessing or dealing in the securities market directly or indirectly for a period of 5 - 7 years - Further 11 entities, who have already undergone a debarment of more than 5 years from the date of the interim order have been directed to disgorge an amount of ₹ 3,05,99,174/- jointly and severally along with the 5 entities who have now been restrained along with interest @ 12% p.a. from December 17, 2012 till the date of payment - HELD THAT:- In a scheme of manipulative and unfair trading it is not necessary that every participant should be indulging in every type of trading violation or even in the same/similar magnitude. Once they are found to be part of a group trying to manipulate the volume or price of the scrip they became party to the violation. Hair....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 639 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Liability of the Company and directors - repayment of the money collected through issuance of Secured Optionally Convertible Debentures - HELD THAT:- WTM relying on the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 73 of the Companies Act has observed that the liability of the Company and directors would remain until the whole of the subscription amount along with interest is refunded to the allottees. This being the position the appellant cannot escape from the liability of the repayment. In the case of Sayanti Sen [2019 (8) TMI 1441 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] this Tribunal has observed that WTM in the impugned order therein had given a categorical finding that one Shri Shib Narayan Das was responsible for the affairs of the company. In the present case the appellant during the relevant period being a promoter director of GIIPL ca....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 564 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Period of limitation to initiate proceedings - proceedings were launched by respondent SEBI after a period seven years - Manipulation of scrips - Shares were either sold in off-market or through market to the connected entities in order to create a volume manipulation in the said scrips - HELD THAT:- Power to initiate the proceedings must be exercised by the authorities within a reasonable time. This would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the default / statute and prejudice caused to the noticee. In the present case, the appellant neither put a plea of prejudice before the AO nor before us. It was simply stated that since the proceedings were launched by respondent SEBI after a period seven years, the same should be quashed on the ground of delay. The record would show that all the documents concerning the de....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 428 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Public offer of shares - no private placement as per assessee company as per WTM - offer to more than 49 persons - violation of the provisions of the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Evidence indicates that an invitation was made by the management of the company to selected persons for subscription or purchase by less than fifty persons. Such persons receiving the offer or invitation was not calculated directly or indirectly to be availed of by other persons, and consequently such invitation or offer could not be treated as an offer or invitation to the public. The finding of the WTM on this aspect is absolutely perverse. The reasoning given that merely because three allottees had made the complaints indicates that the offer or invitation falls in the category of one which is calculated to result directly or indirectly in the shares, debenture....... + More
........
|
