Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + AT SEBI - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1589 - AT - SEBIFraud made by Directors - Person responsible for issuance of the redeemable preference shares - as argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not a director when the resolution regarding issuance of redeemable preference shares was passed by the company thus he should not be made responsible for the acts of other directors - HELD THAT - Senior Counsel fairly submits that the appellant is being held responsible, particularly in clause f , because he continues to be a director as per the records of ROC as reflected on MCA portal. The concern of SEBI seems to be that the present directors, wrongly or rightly, who have been shown as directors on MCA portal should be made responsible for ensuring the repayment of the amount collected illegally by the company pursuant to resolution passed on 15th February, 2012, although the appellant was not a director at that time remains an admitted position. We are of the considered opinion that this appeal can be disposed of with a direction to the appellant to obtain appropriate documents/orders from the competent authority to the effect that he was fraudulently appointed as director of the company in question on 10th February, 2015. For this purpose, the appellant is granted time up to one year to do the needful and submit the same to SEBI. In the eventuality of appellant producing the documents to the satisfaction of SEBI that he was fraudulently inducted as one of the directors of the company, SEBI will pass appropriate orders as per law.
Issues:
- Responsibility of a director for refunding money collected through issuance of redeemable preference shares in contravention of public issue norms under the Companies Act, 1956. - Dispute regarding the appellant's directorship and liability for acts of other directors. - Interpretation of Sections 56 and 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in relation to the liability of directors. - Examination of the concept of an "officer in default" under the Companies Act, 1956. - Determination of liability of directors for refunding amounts collected from investors with interest. - Consideration of SEBI's actions based on directorship status as per records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) portal. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged an order directing the refund of money collected through redeemable preference shares, issued against public issue norms. The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that he became a director fraudulently and should not be held responsible for other directors' actions. SEBI contended that the appellant's appearance on the MCA portal justified holding him accountable. 2. Referring to a previous judgment involving a similar issue, the Tribunal highlighted that directors, including the appellant, were liable for refunds despite not directly issuing the shares. The Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to refund amounts collected from investors rests on all directors of the company, irrespective of individual involvement in the share issuance process. 3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of not being an "officer in default" under the Companies Act, 1956. It clarified that all directors are accountable if no specific officer is designated to fulfill obligations under the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that merely lending one's name as a director does not absolve the individual from refund obligations under the law. 4. SEBI's concern was the appellant's continued directorship as per the MCA portal records, making him liable for ensuring repayment despite not being a director during the share issuance resolution. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide evidence within a year proving fraudulent directorship, after which SEBI would take appropriate action based on the findings. 5. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the directive for the appellant to substantiate fraudulent directorship claims within the specified timeframe, leaving no order on costs incurred during the proceedings.
|