9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether SEBI has statutory power to award interest. 2. Whether interest could be awarded from 14-7-2000 or should be from 7-11-2000. 3. Whether the award of interest at 15% per annum is exorbitant and amounts to a penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Statutory Power to Award Interest: The appellants argued that SEBI has no express statutory power to award interest, contending that regulation 22(12) of the SEBI (Acquisition of Shares) Regulations, 1997 is the only provision for awarding interest if there is a delay beyond 30 days. They cited several judgments, including Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, Swift & Co. v. Board of Trade, and New Port Borough Council v. Monmouthshire Country Council, to support their argument that interest cannot be awarded without express provision. The appellants also referenced the maxim "expressio unis est exclusio alterius" to argue that SEBI cannot rely on any other provision beyond regulation 22(12). The respondents countered by asserting that under section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, SEBI has the mandate to protect investors' interests by taking measures it deems fit. They argued that section 11(2) does not negate section 11(1) and that regulation 44 provides SEBI the authority to award interest. The Gujarat High Court in SEBI v. Alka Synthetics Ltd. supported this interpretation, stating that SEBI must be able to take measures as required by the speculative nature of the market. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that section 11(1) read with regulation 44 provides SEBI with inherent power to award interest. The court emphasized that SEBI's primary duty is to protect investors' interests, and there is no regulation or statutory provision preventing SEBI from awarding interest. 2. Date from Which Interest is Awarded: The appellants argued that interest should not be awarded from 14-7-2000 but from 7-11-2000. They contended that the minimum acquisition of 50% took place on 7-7-2000, and hence interest should be calculated from 7-11-2000. The respondents maintained that the correct date for awarding interest is 14-7-2000, as the decision to acquire was made on 14-3-2000, and a four-month period for procedural formalities should be considered. The Securities Appellate Tribunal had earlier held that the relevant date for computing the share price was 14-3-2000, which was accepted by the court in Appeal No. 582 of 2001. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that since the appellants accepted the judgment fixing 14-3-2000 as the relevant date for price computation, they cannot now contest it. The Tribunal's decision to use 8-8-2000 as the date for interest calculation was also accepted, as SEBI did not contest it. 3. Rate of Interest: The appellants argued that the interest rate of 15% per annum is exorbitant and amounts to a penalty, suggesting that the rate should be 5-6% as prevalent in the United Kingdom. The respondents argued that the interest rate of 15% per annum is justified and in line with various SEBI regulations, which provide for 15% interest in cases of delayed refunds. They emphasized that the conditions in India, not the UK, should be considered. The court found no substance in the appellants' contention, stating that 15% interest is neither unjust nor exorbitant. The SEBI regulations themselves provide for 15% interest in cases of delay, and the rate cannot be construed as a penalty. The court dismissed the relevance of the UK interest rate in this context. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Securities Appellate Tribunal's order. It concluded that SEBI has the statutory power to award interest, the interest should be calculated from 8-8-2000, and the interest rate of 15% per annum is justified and not penal. The appeal was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed with costs.
|
