|
Advanced Search Options
SEBI - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 510 Records
-
2021 (10) TMI 818
Simulatnaous Adjudication proceedings and criminal Prosecution - exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit - Applicants have been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings on the allegations for which, they have been prosecuted by the SEBI - HELD THAT:- In the case of K.C. Builders (2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT)the Hon’ble Apex Court had taken a view that when there is categorical finding in the adjudication proceedings exonerating the person, it is binding and conclusive and thus, the Prosecution cannot be allowed to stand.
In case in hand, the Applicants have been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings on merits and not on technical ground, and therefore the Prosecution for identical violation shall continue, if the order passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal, preferred by the SEBI against the decision of Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. [2008 (10) TMI 628 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI] Thus, for the reasons stated above, the proceedings in the complaint pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, against the Applicants, shall remain stayed till the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal ’s instituted by the SEBI against the decision of the Securities Appellate Tribunal [2008 (10) TMI 628 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI]
-
2021 (9) TMI 1524
Offence under SEBI Act - synchronized trading, reversal trading and self-trading - appellants made unlawful gains - trading noticees received funds from the financing notices which were directly transferred to the stock brokers against the pay in obligation of the trading noticees - WTM directed the appellants to pay the said amount jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
HELD THAT:- Any person who has made profits or averted loss by indulging in any transaction or activity in contravention of the provisions of this Act or Regulations made thereunder would be liable to disgorge an amount equivalent to the unlawful gain or loss averted by such contravention.
Thus, disgorgement can only happen if the person contravenes the provisions of the Act or Regulations. Secondly, the disgorgement is equivalent to the wrongful gain made or loss averted. Thus, disgorgement cannot exceed the amount of wrongful gains.The concept of disgorgement under the SEBI laws is based on the principle that a person in possession of wrongful gains by which he is enriched may be asked to part with the amount equivalent to such gains alongwith interest.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines disgorgement as “The act of giving up something (such as profits illegally obtained) on demand or by legal compulsion.” To disgorge means to deprive a person of the value by which he is unjustly enriched. Further, disgorgement is an equitable remedy designed to deprive a wrong doer of his unjust enrichment. It aims in ensuring that a person in possession of the wrongful gain does not continue to enjoy them. Section 11B of the Act only talks about disgorgement of unlawful gains/profits. The concept of “net profits” is not existing in Section 11B but the same has been carved out by Courts exercising equitable jurisdiction. Some Courts have granted only deduction of statutory dues, others have granted other legitimate expenses.
Disgorgement in our opinion is an equitable remedy under Section 11B of the Act meant to prevent the wrongdoers from enriching himself by his wrong by wresting ill-gotten gains from the hands of the wrongdoer. The provisions relating to disgorgement is thus remedial in nature and is not punitive.
Thus, legitimate expenses can be deducted while arriving at net profit. The respondent in this case has only allowed statutory deductions expended as a deduction while arriving at the net profit but did not allow deduction of administrative expenses and brokerage incurred by the wrongdoer.
We are in agreement with the findings given by the WTM in this regard. In our opinion net profit from wrongdoing is the gain made by any business or investment, where both the receipts and payments are taken into account. We are further of the opinion that the appellant will not be allowed to diminish the show of profits by putting in unconscionable expenses or other inequitable deductions even though entire profits of a business may result from the wrongdoings of the appellants and therefore are not entitled for the deductions as prayed by them.
Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act debars an assess claiming any deduction from business profits any expenditure which may be incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. The aforesaid principle equally applies to SEBI laws since disgorgement is not a penalty nor is punitive as held by this Tribunal in Gagan Rastogi vs. SEBI [2019 (10) TMI 1047 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI]
Administrative expenses and brokerage charges are in the nature of business expenses and are not legitimate expenses for the purpose of claiming deductions in order to arrive at the net profit. Disgorgement being an equitable remedy and even though the profits results from wrongdoings, the appellants were rightly denied administrative expenses and brokerage. For the reasons stated aforesaid all the appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1519
Fraudulent GDR issue - Company did not make adequate disclosure under the Listing Agreement and that certain monies had also been diverted - WTM passed an order of debarment and the AO passed the order of imposition of penalty on directors - HELD THAT:- H.S. Anand [director] - Subsequent order of the AO finding the Director Anand guilty is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. Once an AO comes to a conclusion that Mr. H.S. Anand had nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the Company and was only associated in providing technical expertise on product quality and was not involved in any financials of the Company it was no longer open to the AO to take a different view on another GDR issue when the facts and modus operandi were all common. We are of the opinion that the regulator should be consistent in its stand and should not take contradictory views on the same issue.
In view of the categorical finding that being a non-executive independent director, the said appellant was never involved in the day-today affairs of the Company nor was part of the decision making process relating to the GDR issue, the said appellant cannot be held guilty only on the basis of being a signatory to a resolution. In Prafull Anubhai Shah vs. SEBI, [2021 (6) TMI 1159 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] we have held that being a signatory to a resolution is not sufficient to point fingers of committing a fraud. Thus, the order of the AO imposing a penalty upon Mr. H.S. Anand and the order of the WTM debarring him for one year cannot be sustained.
Non-executive independent director [Mr. I.S. Sukhija] the application of the respondent seeking permission to bring on record the additional documents cannot be allowed as it does not come within the parameters of the grounds given in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nothing has been stated as to why these documents which are in the public domain could not be considered by the authorities while considering the matter.
Nothing has been brought on record to indicate as to why such documents which was within their knowledge could not be brought on record. In any case, reliance upon these documents are misplaced. Merely because Mr. I.S. Sukhija was the Chairman of the Audit Committee does not mean that he was party to the fraudulent scheme, if any. The observations made by the authorities in the impugned orders that he should have raised questions as to why the GDR proceeds was not brought into the Company’s account or why the loan was given to the Vintage from the GDR proceeds are not matters which comes under the purview of the audit committee.
In any case, we find that there was no need to raise such questions as the loan in one case was paid immediately and in the other case was paid within a couple of months. Further, the evidence which has come on record indicates that the GDR proceeds were utilized for the purpose for which the resolution for issuance of the GDR was passed. Thus, the finding of the authorities that a fraud has committed by the Company is patently erroneous.
When the proceeds have come into the Company and have been utilized for the purpose of setting up a subsidiary in UAE the funds have been utilized for the purpose for which the GDR was issued. Thus, in our view merely because the appellant Mr. I.S. Sukhija was part of the resolution which approved the issuance of the GDR and opening of a bank account with Euram Bank does not lead to a conclusion that the appellant was part of the scheme of the alleged fraud which in any case was not in existence. Thus, imposition of penalty by the AO and debarment by the WTM was wholly erroneous on this appellant.
Managing Director of the Company [Mr. Gurmeet Singh] violation is nondisclosure of the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement under the Listing Agreement for which penalty was rightly imposed upon the Managing Director - quantum imposed is wholly excessive and does not commensurate with the misconduct. There is nothing on record to indicate that any shareholder or investors have suffered any loss on account of conversion of GDR into equity shares which was sold in the Indian market. Thus, we are of the opinion that for non-disclosure of the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement to the Stock Exchange under the Listing Agreement the penalty of Rs. 20 lakh in each GDR issue would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case and the debarment against Mr. Gurmeet Singh is upheld.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1518
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market - issuance of the GDRs - inadequate disclosures to the investors - Investigation revealed that the Company made selective disclosure to Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and suppressed material information, namely, that Euram Bank was authorized to use the proceeds in connection with a loan and that the execution of the loan agreement and the pledge agreement was not disclosed - Penalty imposed - HELD THAT:- The company is now under liquidation. The loan taken by Vintage has been repaid to the company. US$ 8.3 million was transferred to the account of the company and US$ 6 million was transferred to its subsidiary in UAE as per the GDRs offering. Thus, a genuine GDRs issue was made by the company which was not fraudulent nor the proceeds of the GDRs has been diverted to a third entity. In fact, there is no specific allegation about the non-utilization of the GDRs in the show cause notice. Thus, there cannot be any violation of any fraud or inducement under Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations.
AO while considering the factors under Section 15J of the SEBI Act found that there is nothing on record to show or indicate any disproportionality given or unfair advantages made by the appellants nor anything has come on record to show any loss suffered by the investors.
In view of this specific finding coupled with the fact that no fraudulent scheme was initiated by the company, we are of the opinion that the findings given by the WTM and the AO against the appellants Pradip Mundhra and Sanjay Taparia relating to the penalty is excessive and arbitrary and is required to be modified.
Appeals of Jaiprakash Kabra, Gopaldas Maheshwari and Rajesh Jhunjhunwala being covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Praful Shah [2021 (6) TMI 1159 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] the impugned orders of the AO in so far as it relates to these appellants are quashed. Their appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
In so far as the appeals of Pradip Mundhra and Sanjay Taparia are concerned, they being on the helm of the affairs of the the company on a day to day basis, they are responsible for nondisclosure of vital information. However, the penalty imposed by the AO and the WTM are disproportionate and excessive, therefore, while affirming the findings of violation in so far as it relates to nondisclosure, the penalty of Rs. 50 lac imposed by the AO is reduced to Rs. 20 lac each and debarment of five years made by the WTM is reduced to two years and six months. The appeals of Pradip Mundhra and Sanjay Taparia are partly allowed.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1504
Violation of Regulation 11(1) of the SAST Regulations - Non issue of open offer - inflated price of the shares - HELD THAT:- The impugned order of the learned WTM would show that he has gone through the terms and conditions of the ZOCD Agreement, and considered the plea of the respondent as to why ZOCD Agreement and SUA were required to be executed in view of the up linking guidelines of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The said guidelines required that at least 51% of the total equity share capital of such a media company was required to be held by largest Indian shareholders. All those terms are put in the order.
Upon going through the terms and conditions of ZOCD Agreement, the learned WTM found that Mr. Raghav Bahl continued to be in control of TV 18, NW18 etc. on behalf of the holding companies. IMT and RIL did not had any say in the management affairs of TV 18, NW18 under the said ZOCD Agreement. The underlying existing shareholding continued to be in the hands of Mr. Raghav Bahl and the holding entities. It was found that ZOCD Agreement did not carry any voting rights. The voting rights of Mr. Raghav Bahl entities were not stifled by the said agreement. Thus, there was not any effective change in control of NW18 as a result of the execution of the ZOCD Agreement.
CCI had observed that in view of the conversion option contained in ZOCD Agreement to receive equity shares of the target company, the said amounted to the indirect acquisition of shares of the target company. The learned WTM considered the same. ZOCDs were in the nature of convertible into equity shares at any time, and only upon conversion of the same IMT would have been able to hold more than 99.99% shares of the diluted equity of the promoter company of NW18 etc. This option however was not exercised at any time before making the public announcement, thus, the ZOCD Agreement itself did not entail into any indirect control of IMT or RIL in NW18 and, therefore, no disclosure was required to be made.
In our view, the reasoning of the learned WTM cannot be faulted with. The ZOCD Agreement was in the nature of investment by IMT in the holding companies of TV18, NW18. Said ZOCD Agreement had given right to IMT, the subscriber of the ZOCDs to convert ZOCDs into equity in a given period. The control of TV18 and NW18, continued with Mr. Raghav Bahl and his entities. IT had no say in the voting rights etc. and, therefore, the conclusion of the learned WTM cannot be faulted with.
While claiming cost from the appellants, the respondents blamed the appellants for indulging into speculative litigation - As detailed earlier, Mr. Dwarkadas even pointed out the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the earlier round of litigation made against the present appellants. We however find that in so far as the present round is concerned the appellants’ case was strengthened by the observation of the CCI as well as the, prima-facie, observation made by this Tribunal earlier. In the circumstances, we do not find that the present litigation is also a speculative litigation.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1426
Offence under SEBI - Appointment of adjudicating officer for holding inquiry - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that, in the present proceedings, the Respondent issued Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner. Whatever documents can be provided to the Petitioner, the same were provided by the Respondent. Respondent, specifically informed to the Petitioner by their letter dated 24/03/2021 (Exhibit-H) that other documents cannot be provided because those were kept are confidential. Apart from that, the Petitioner already filed applications (Exhibit-P) and another interim application on the same day (Exhibit-Q) for directing the Respondent to provide the documents. These both applications are pending before the Authority.
It is to be noted that the Judgment relied by the Petitioner as stated hereinabove are not applicable in the facts of the present case because in the present case, the Respondent Board specifically informed the Petitioner by letter dated 23/03/2021 that certain documents are confidential and that cannot provided to the Petitioner. The hearing of the show cause notice as well as applications filed by the Petitioner for certain documents (Exhibit-P and Exhibit-Q) are pending before the Whole Time Member of the SEBI.
The letter of the Respondent dated 24/03/2021 and the statement made by the learned senior counsel for the Respondent stating that the they are not relying any other documents except those which are provided to the Petitioner, we do not find any substance in the present writ petition.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1392
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 - Director guilty for violating Section 12A of the SEBI Act - scheme to defraud any shareholder or investor HELD THAT:- Appellate Tribunal was impressed by the view taken by it in another case decided around the same time viz., in the case of ‘Adi Cooper v. Securities and Exchange Board of India’ [2019 (11) TMI 1380 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI]
Placing reliance on the said decision, the Securities Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent.
Be it noted, the decision of the Securities Appellate Trib[2019 (11) TMI 1380 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI]unal in the case of ‘Adi Cooper v. Securities and Exchange Board of India’ has been reversed by this Court in [2021 (9) TMI 1391 - SUPREME COURT] - As a result, it is not open to place reliance on the said decision.
Further, we have noticed that the SEBI in its order which has been set aside by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, had adverted to the specific role of the respondent as noticee No. 6. It is noticed that besides being party to the loosely worded resolution, which paved way to the company for resorting to fraudulent transaction, he had complete knowledge about the same. These aspects have not been squarely dealt with by the Securities Appellate Tribunal in the impugned judgment.
Taking any view of the matter, therefore, this appeal ought to succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside. Instead, the parties are relegated before the Securities Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration of the appeal afresh.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1391
Insider trading - whole-time director responsibility - direction issued by the SEBI restraining the respondent from accessing the securities market and further prohibiting him from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly for a period of two years from the date of the order - HELD THAT:- Although the respondent was party to the resolution, being a whole-time director and member of the Board of Directors of the Company, had only resolved that Company may open an account with the EURAM Bank for the purpose of deposit of GDR proceeds. The resolution does not stipulate that the proceeds would be used as security in connection with the loan taken by another entity. The latter part of this submission is not in consonance with the purport of the resolution passed by the Board on January 30, 2008.
Whereas, the SEBI had rightly noted that such resolution facilitated the transaction with Vintage and was a fraudulent transaction considering the fact that neither the arrangement nor the resolution was ever disclosed to the shareholders of the Company or the investors of the securities market through BSE. This aspect has not been reckoned by the Appellate Tribunal. This is a manifest error committed by the Appellate Tribunal.
We have no hesitation in taking the view that the Appellate Tribunal was unduly impressed by only one fact; but ought to have construed the resolution in the manner done by the SEBI and in particular, the inaction of the Board of not disclosing the arrangement to the shareholders or the investors of the securities market through BSE.
As a result, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and instead uphold the view taken by the SEBI vide its decision dated 28.02.2019.
As regards the debarment period specified in the said order, we accept the submission canvassed by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent having already undergone substantial part of the prohibition imposed by the SEBI vide order dated 28.02.2019, that period be treated as sufficient compliance of the final order passed by the SEBI.
Counsel for the appellant has left it to the Court to pass appropriate order on this submission.
Accordingly, we accept the submission made by the respondent and order that the prohibition imposed by the SEBI in terms of the order dated 28.02.2019 be treated as substantially complied by the respondent and nothing more needs to be done in that regard hereafter.
We are informed by the counsel for the respondent that there are other proceedings pending against the respondent, in which the respondent may be permitted to raise all permissible issues and contentions and those proceedings be decided in accordance with law. We have no difficulty in acceding to this submission. We order accordingly.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1376
Fraud under SEBI Act - penalty imposed - as contended that the applicant/Dalmia has suffered because of the fraud committed by respondent no.1/IL & FS Securities Services Ltd as well as respondent no.4/Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the findings recorded by the SEBI about the degree of involvement of the applicant/Dalmia in the said transactions, as revealed in records before us, as well as the involvement of respondent no.4 and tentative findings of fraud by respondent no.4, and also keeping in view that by a separate order penalty has also been imposed on respondents no.1 and 4 by the SEBI (without there being any finding of fraud against respondent no.1), we modify the order dated 16.03.2021 to the following extent:
That instead of bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 344.07 crore, which has been furnished by applicant/Dalmia in terms of our order dated 16.03.2021, the applicant/Dalmia shall now furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 100 crores and further it shall furnish a security to the extent of ₹ 300 crores of an unencumbered asset, the value of which may be duly certified by the Chartered Accountant-cum-Valuer, who have no conflict of interest having regard to the parties involved and interest in the subject matter and may be any one of the following.
1. PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited
2. Ernst and Young
3. KPMG
The bank guarantee already furnished by the applicant/Dalmia to the extent of ₹ 344.07 crores shall stand discharged on the applicant/Dalmia fulfilling the above conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The applicant/Dalmia shall also file an affidavit before this Court to the extent that the asset, which is being furnished as security, is an unencumbered property.
It is clarified that any observations made in this order will not affect the merits of the case, when the appeals are heard on merits.
-
2021 (9) TMI 1143
Recovery proceedings - Offence under SEBI Act - Denial of natural justice - whether the recovery notice is sustainable in law? - HELD THAT:- The order does not fix any particular liability to be discharged by the writ-applicants. If upon such order recovery is sought to be undertaken of an amount then it was expected of the concerned authority to at least issue a notice to the writ-applicants and give an opportunity of hearing before arriving at a particular figure.
The impugned recovery notice is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 shall issue notice to the writ-applicants and fix a particular date so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicants and thereafter determine a particular amount to be paid by the writ-applicants to the depositors in accordance with law.
-
2021 (9) TMI 717
Compounding of offence under SEBI Act Rejected - guidelines for compounding under Section 24A - Whether accused/Company has wound up and refunded the entire amount collected under scheme to all their share holders/ creditors? - HELD THAT:- Indisputably, the learned Judge neither referred to wind up repayment report dated 22nd February, 2019, nor the orders passed by this Court in Company Petition; nor SEBIs’ circular dated 20th April, 2007, nor the Court obtained the views of SEBI before denying to compound the offence.
The order dated 28th August, 2019 below Exhibit – 11 in SEBI Special Case passed by learned SEBI Special Judge is quash and set aside. As a consequence, learned Judge shall decide the application below Exhibit-11, in accordance with guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court set out in the case of Prakash Gupta [2021 (7) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2021 (9) TMI 310
Validity of appointment of Grant Thornton Bharat LLP (GTB) as a Forensic Auditor in respect of the financial statements of the respondent No.2/company - conflict of interest - violation of the principles of natural justice - absence of cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court for maintaining the present petition - HELD THAT:- The “cause of action” is a bundle of facts which when taken together, with the law applicable to the said facts, gives a right to the plaintiff to seek relief against the defendant. In other words, cause of action is premised on the existence of a group of facts put together that would entitle a plaintiff to approach the court for a remedy against the defendant.
In UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ADANI EXPORTS LTD. [2001 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT], it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, the averments in the writ petition must disclose that such integral facts have been pleaded in support of the cause of action that would empower a court to decide the dispute and it is not as if each and every fact pleaded in the petition would automatically lead to a conclusion that there would arise a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, unless the facts are of such a nature that they would have a nexus or relevance with the lis involved in the case.
It is also not in dispute that the sale proceeds of the shares of SAIPL to TMPPL, i.e., a sum of ₹ 1000-1200 crores had been placed in an escrow account held in trust for the shareholders and the very same Transaction Committee was required to deliberate upon and evaluate the various options available for distribution of the monies to the shareholders - It has not been denied by the respondent No.2/company that during this entire period when a decision was taken to delist the company and give an exit option to the public shareholders by offering them a floor price of ₹ 63.77 ps per share, Mr. Anoop Krishna was closely connected not only to the management, but also to the aforesaid promoters of the respondent No.2/company.
We are unable to sustain the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.1/SEBI insofar as it has upheld the decision taken on 07.10.2020, of appointing GTB as a forensic auditor in respect of the financial affairs of the respondent No.2/company which is accordingly quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1397
Violations of disclosure requirements in terms of SAST Regulations and SEBI ‘PIT Regulations 1992’ read with SEBI ‘PIT Regulations 2015’ - SEBI found irregularities in the scrip of the Company - off market transactions - Manner of creating pledge or hypothecation - appellant submitted that the transfer of the shares to the appellant later on would not amount to purchase of shares - HELD THAT:- As per Section 10 of the Depositories Act, 1996 a person in whose name the shares are recorded with the depository is deemed to be the registered owner for the purposes of effecting transfer of ownership of security on behalf of a beneficial owner. Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 150 of the Companies Act which requires every company to keep a register of its members and enter therein their particulars of shares held by them, as referred to in the section. Further survey of various relevant provisions was taken.
Ultimately, it was held that the submissions that retransfer of the shares by the Bank to the appellant therein would not amount to acquisition of the shares cannot be accepted. It was held that such arguments would mean circumventing Takeover Code and Regulation 58 of the Depository Regulations, which cannot be permitted. It was further found that when the law prescribes course for creation of a pledge of shares, the parties cannot agree to create a pledge contrary to the SAST Regulations. Considering all these facts the contention of the appellants was negativated and the appeal against the order of the respondent SEBI was dismissed.
Taking into consideration all these factors and the law as crystallized, in our view, the submissions of the appellants cannot be accepted. It is an admitted fact that the shares were transferred to the concerned noticees. Thereafter the shares were again transferred in the demat accounts of the appellants in the similar fashion. Appellants have thus violated the provisions of the regulations detailed above. The order of the AO, therefore cannot be faulted.
As regards the issue of delay in launching the proceedings, we find that no plea is taken that the delay has caused any prejudice. Delay simpliciter, if any would not lead us to quash the proceedings initiated by SEBI.
As regards the quantum of penalty, the learned AO has imposed the penalty against the Appellants of Rs. 10 lakh under Section 15H of SEBI Act jointly and severally, under Section 23H of SCRA of Rs. 10 lakh each and Rs. 10 lakh only on the Appellant no. 1 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act. Considering the fact that the violations were made on several occasions as detailed in the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order in this regard also.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1314
Violation of the securities laws - Misstatement in the prospectus - IPO proceeds were diverted and misutlised by the Company - some amount of the IPO proceeds were disbursed to certain entities under the pretext of advances towards work contracts for IPO objectives, but in fact, no substantial work contracts were executed - Directors of the Company known as Birla Pacific Medspa Ltd. have been restrained from accessing the securities market directly or indirectly, in any manner and further prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner for a period of two years - HELD THAT:- Merely because the word ‘ICD’ was not mentioned in the interim use of funds in the prospectus does not become a case of misstatement in the prospectus nor does it become a deliberate part of larger design to come out with an IPO and, thereafter, funding the operations of its group company through ICDs thereby siphoning of the money from the genuine investors. In our opinion, the word ‘liquid instrument’ is wide enough to include ICDs
The finding that because the word ‘corporate’ was included in the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 11 July, 2011 indicates that the prospectus lacked material particulars is patently erroneous as we have held that liquid instruments includes ICDs and, therefore, there was no misstatement in the prospectus. Consequently, the prospectus did not lack material particulars. Further, the resolution of 11 July, 2011 was not in contradiction or in violation of the terms indicated in the prospectus but only clarified the deployment of the IPO proceeds on a temporary basis. Such clarification in our opinion was in consonance with the use of the word ‘liquid instruments’ given in the prospectus.
The offer document is required to contain all material disclosures to enable the investors/subscribers to take an informed decision and that such disclosure must be prompt, true and fair. In the instant case, the disclosures made in the prospectus were material disclosures which were true, fair and adequate. There is no finding of the WTM that the disclosures made in the prospectus were not true and fair or were inadequate. The use of the word ‘corporate’ in the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 11 July, 2011 does not make the prospectus untrue or inadequate. In our view, the resolution of the Board of Directors was in accordance with the disclosures made in the prospectus. The usage of the word ‘corporate’ in the resolution does not dilute the statement made in the prospectus. In fact, it only clarifies it. Thus, there is no breach of Regulation 57(1), 60(4)(a) and 60(7)(a) of ‘ICDR Regulations, 2009’ and Clause 2 (XVI) (B) (2) of Part A of Schedule VIII read with Regulation 57(2)(a) of ICDR Regulations, 2009.
The contention raised by appellant that they were denied inspection of documents in violation of the principles of natural justice or on the issue that the proceedings were initiated belatedly or on the issue that the appellants being Non-Executive Director/Non Independent Executive Director no liability could be fastened upon them as they had a limited role to play in affairs of the Company need not be gone into as we are satisfied that the appellants did not commit any breach of the ICDR Regulations nor made any misstatement in the prospectus.
The impugned order in so far as it relates to the appellants cannot be sustained and is quashed. All the appeals are allowed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. All the misc. applications are accordingly disposed of.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1313
Petitioner seeking direction against respondent to produce all documents relied upon by them while issuing SCN including investigation report - Code of Conduct for regulation monitoring prevention of insider trading approved and followed by the Company - HELD THAT:- On the basis of the reply filed by the respondent when this Court declined to entertain the petition, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to put all these issues before the authority i.e. the person who is going to hear the show cause notice. Hence, the following order is passed.
Writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. All contentions of both parties are kept open. No order as to costs.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1299
Insider trading - charge of violation of Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations - contravention of Section 12A(d) of the SEBI Act - conspiracy in the commissioning of the offence of insider trading - As urged by the appellant Rohit Gupta that the WTM has miserably failed to establish the charge of trading against the appellant and has been found guilty only on the basis of preponderance of probability - Contention of the appellants is that adequate opportunity was not provided - HELD THAT:- We find that pursuant to the show cause notice dated July 31, 2018 which was duly served on all the notices, the appellants were required to appear on September 3, 2019 and file a reply which they failed to do so. By a letter dated December 9, 2018 some of the noticees, namely, Navin Tayal and Jyotika Tayal intimated that their authorized signatory would appear on their behalf but failed to appear on next date i.e. September 3, 2019. On September 3, 2019, the AO fixed the hearing date for September 17, 2019. All the noticees requested for an adjournment on September 17, 2019 and prayed that they may be provided an opportunity to inspect the documents.
AO, in the interest of justice, adjourned the matter for November 18, 2019. Prior to that date, noticee No. 1 on November 4, 2019 and on November 5, 2019, the appellants Navin Tayal, Jyotika Tayal and Azam Shaikh, on November 14, 2019 Advik and on November 15, 2019 Kulwinder Nayyar vide the letters requested the AO for inspection of documents. The matter was accordingly adjourned on November 18, 2019 and vide notice dated December 27, 2019, all the noticees were given an opportunity to inspect the documents on January 30, 2020. By the said notice, all the noticees were intimated that the hearing would be fixed on February 17, 2020. The record indicates that no one appeared to inspect the documents on January 30, 2020 in spite of the receipt of the notice nor appeared on the date fixed for hearing i.e. February 17, 2020 and accordingly the AO proceeded ex-parte and passed the impugned order.
The contention that the notice dated December 12, 2019 was received by the appellants on January 28, 2020 was vehemently denied by the respondent. The respondent contended that the said notice was received by the appellants on January 17, 2020 and proof of delivery of service has been annexed to the reply. It was contended that the letter of the appellants dated February 11, 2020 seeking further time to inspect the documents and for adjournment and for reschedulement of the hearing was never received and the appellants were put to strict proof. In rejoinder, the appellants admitted that the notice dated December 27, 2019 was received on January 17, 2020 but was not placed before the appellants and, therefore, could not appear for inspection of documents. It was also stated that on account of personal exigency, the appellants could not attend the date fixed for hearing. No proof have been filed by the appellants with regard to the service of letter dated February 11, 2020.
It is apparently clear that the appellants were duly served with the notice. Adequate opportunity was provided to inspect the documents and appear on the date fixed for hearing. The appellants chose not to inspect the documents nor appeared personally nor appeared through their authorized representative on the date fixed for hearing. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the principles of natural justice was fully complied with. The appellants deliberately chose not to participate in the proceedings and, therefore, we do not find any fault in the proceedings adopted by the AO. The order of the AO does not suffer from any error of law.
All the appeals filed against the order of the WTM and against the order of the AO are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2021 (8) TMI 398
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices - settlement in terms of SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014 seeked - HELD THAT:- Petitioners are entitled to move application for settlement even at the appellate stage. However, for the said purpose, the petitioners would have to move appropriate application before the appellate forum. The said applications thereafter be rooted to the High Powered Advisory Committee which may examine the aspect keeping in view the fact that other similarly situated two companies (supra) have been allowed to get the matter settled and settlement orders have been passed in relation to the other similarly situated companies (supra).
The issue with regard to the condition as laid down by the Internal Committee can also be examined by the High Powered Advisory Committee and it may take its own decision in this regard. As on today, so far as this Court is concerned, it is of the confirmed opinion that such a precondition is not existing and the same only related to the earlier settlement applications.
This Court concludes that no relief can be granted to the petitioner for revival of the settlement applications and the petitioner has to move afresh application if so chooses in terms of Regulation 7 of the Settlement Regulations, 2018. If such afresh application for settlement is moved, it shall be placed before the High Powered Advisory Committee as provided under Regulation 7 of the Settlement Regulations, 2018 and a decision shall be taken at the earliest. However, taking into consideration that the orders have already been passed under Section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, there can be no precondition of depositing the amount of 50% over the settlement amount. The said condition would only operate after the settlement is arrived at and determined by the concerned Committee. Similarly, in relation to settlement of penalty also, the aforementioned observations will equally apply.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1433
GDR issue to sole subscriber - misleading information was given to the shareholders and the investors that the GDRs were subscribed by many entities - loan obtained by Vintage through a pledge agreement given by the Company was a fraudulent act which was not disclosed to the stock exchange - HELD THAT:- We find that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by a recent decision of this Tribunal in Prafull Anubhai Shah [2021 (6) TMI 1159 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] held that merely because the appellant was present when the resolution dated July 27, 2006 was passed, no conclusion can be drawn that this was the starting point of the fraudulent arrangement for issuance of GDR and for opening a bank account. The resolution does not given any indication that the appellant had knowledge beforehand that the GDR issue was the purpose to manipulate the price or the market or that a fraud would be played upon the shareholders and the investors.
We are further of the opinion that finding of the WTM that the resolution of the Board of Directors provides execution of a pledge or execution of a charge agreement is wholly erroneous, perverse and based on no evidence. The resolution also does not stipulate that the proceeds could be utilized by the bank as security in connection with a loan taken by another entity.
In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be debarred only on the basis of being present in the resolution of the Board of Directors.
The impugned order of the AO as well as the WTM in so far as it relates to the appellants cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeals are allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1417
Violation of Regulation 11(1) of the SAST Regulations - Non issue of open offer - Initiation of proceedings after delay of 12 Years - WTM came to the conclusion that all the acquirers collectively acquired more than five percent of the shares in the financial year 2005-06 and such acquisition beyond five percent triggered the open offer under Regulation 11(1) which acquirers failed to make and, therefore, became liable for penal action under the SAST Regulations - HELD THAT:- In the present case, SEBI is sitting quietly and has not taken any action for 12 years. Such delay defeats the purpose of initiation of proceedings for appropriate action.
Inspite of specific orders being issued from time to time on the question of delay the WTM chooses to ignore those decisions as if they do not exist or is not binding upon them. In the instant case, we find that the WTM has trenchantly asserted that it is a settled position that there is no time limit for issuing notice and that an order cannot be set aside on the ground of delay. Such assertion being used time and again in the order passed by the AO or the WTM is patently erroneous. This Tribunal in a large number of appeals have set aside the orders only on the ground of delay.
Thus considering the long lapse of time in initiating the proceedings, the direction to make an open offer was not appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeals are allowed
-
2021 (7) TMI 986
Violation of the provisions of the SEBI Act - What exact violations raised - HELD THAT:- On going through Exhibit P3 show cause notice issued by the Deputy General manager of SEBI dated 13th March, 2020, we could not locate any such eventuality, apart from the same being explanatory in nature, enabling an aggrieved person to identify the exact violations raised against him and submit a reply understanding the gamut of the issues.
Learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that SEBI has power to initiate action against the appellant for violation of the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 - minute intricacies of the issues raised in regard to the power of the Deputy General Manager of SEBI, the question of limitation etc. are all aspects to be considered by the statutory authority in terms of the provisions of Act, 1992 and the regulations thereto discussed above. That said, the issues raised by the appellant in respect of the power of the authority under the Companies Act, 1956 vis-a-vis the Companies Act, 2013 are all matters, which can be raised before the statutory authority. This we say because, from the show cause notice it is clear that the violations are relating to the years 2007-2013 during which period the Companies Act,1956 was in force.
We are also conscious of the fact that when the functions of an authority are regulated and controlled by clear statutory provisions and without any inhibitions created, we have no reason to think that the said authority would not adjudicate the issues in terms of law.
............
|
