1998 (9) TMI 428 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of SEBI to issue directions.
2. Allegations of grey market operations and fraudulent practices.
3. Procedural fairness and principles of natural justice.
4. Maintainability of review applications.
5. Conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge for hearing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Authority of SEBI to Issue Directions:
The appellant challenged the orders passed by SEBI and the appellate authority under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, questioning SEBI's jurisdiction to direct the refund of the public issue. SEBI's investigation concluded that the appellant engaged in fraudulent practices to boost the share price, leading to the order for refunding the public issue.

2. Allegations of Grey Market Operations and Fraudulent Practices:
SEBI's investigation revealed that Mr. Atul Shah, Managing Director of the appellant company, paid Rs. 21 lakhs to Mr. Shantilal Gandhi for grey market operations to artificially inflate the share price. SEBI's findings included:
- An agreement between Atul Shah and Shantilal Gandhi for marketing the issue.
- Payment of Rs. 21 lakhs to a non-registered intermediary.
- Transactions indicating grey market operations before the official listing.
- Premature release of funds collected from the public issue.

Based on these findings, SEBI ordered the refund of the public issue proceeds, citing violations under the SEBI Act and the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 1995.

3. Procedural Fairness and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex parte without providing an opportunity for a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The appeal was initially adjourned at the appellant's request, but subsequent communications for further adjournments were not acknowledged, leading to an ex parte decision. The appellant was unaware of the hearing date and the subsequent order until much later.

4. Maintainability of Review Applications:
The appellant's review application was dismissed by the appellate authority on the grounds that there was no provision for review under the SEBI Act or the SEBI (Appeal to Central Government) Rules, 1993. The learned Single Judge acknowledged the procedural lapse and set aside the ex parte order, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing with conditions.

5. Conditions Imposed by the Learned Single Judge for Hearing the Appeal:
The learned Single Judge imposed conditions for reviving the appeal, including:
- Depositing Rs. 50 lakhs with SEBI.
- Creating a charge on properties purchased with diverted funds.
- Providing a personal undertaking by Mr. Atul Shah to refund the remaining amount if the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant contested these conditions, particularly the deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs, arguing financial incapacity and the sufficiency of creating a charge on properties worth Rs. 3.6 crores. The Court, however, upheld the conditions, emphasizing the need to protect the interests of the public and ensure compliance with legal provisions.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's conditions for reviving the appeal. The Court extended the time for depositing Rs. 50 lakhs by six weeks, clarifying that the appeal would be heard on merits only after the deposit. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness, compliance with regulatory provisions, and the discretionary power of the Court in imposing conditions to safeguard public interest.