2010 (9) TMI 1249 - AT - SEBI

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cross-Examination
2. Maintainability of Appeal

Summary:

1. Denial of Cross-Examination:
The appellant, a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange and a registered share and stock broker, was accused by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) of executing fictitious and backdated transactions on behalf of Niskalp Investments and Trading Company Private Limited and Tata Finance Limited. SEBI issued a show cause notice based on statements from six individuals. The appellant requested to cross-examine these individuals, but the enquiry officer denied this request. The Tribunal emphasized that cross-examination is crucial for arriving at the truth, citing previous judgments and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that SEBI had repeatedly ignored this fundamental principle and its own guidelines for conducting cross-examinations. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the enquiry officer to permit the appellant to cross-examine the six individuals.

2. Maintainability of Appeal:
SEBI contended that the appeal was not maintainable, arguing that the impugned communication was not "an order" within the meaning of Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the term "an order" is comprehensive enough to include decisions that adversely affect the rights of parties. The Tribunal held that the denial of cross-examination was a final decision on this issue within the enquiry and affected the appellant's substantive rights, making the appeal maintainable. The Tribunal referenced the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. Securities Appellate Tribunal and Anr., clarifying that procedural orders not affecting substantive rights are not appealable, but this was not the case here.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the enquiry officer, and directed that the appellant be allowed to cross-examine the six individuals. There was no order as to costs.