2003 (1) TMI 738 - AT - SEBI

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to file the report under regulation 3(4) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 within the prescribed time.
2. Jurisdiction and authority of the adjudicating officer.
3. Applicability of section 15A(b) versus section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.
4. Imposition of penalty and consideration of mitigating factors.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to File the Report Under Regulation 3(4):
The appellants, major shareholders and promoters of the target company, acquired additional shares during a Rights issue, increasing their holding from 83.63% to 90.96%. Although the acquisition was exempt under regulation 3(1)(b) of the SEBI Regulations, they failed to file the required report under regulation 3(4) within the 21-day period, submitting it only after 226 days. The appellants argued that they were advised that filing was unnecessary because their holding already exceeded 15%. The adjudicating officer confirmed the delay and imposed a penalty of one lakh rupees.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Adjudicating Officer:
The appellants contended that the adjudicating officer acted without authority and jurisdiction, as the adjudication was ordered under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, which pertains to failure to file returns or furnish information within the specified time. They argued that the failure to file the report should be adjudicated under section 15A(a), which deals with failure to furnish documents, returns, or reports to the Board. The adjudicating officer's jurisdiction was limited to the failure specified in clause (b) of section 15A, and the appellants claimed that the wrong section was applied.

3. Applicability of Section 15A(b) Versus Section 15A(a):
The appellants argued that section 15A(a) was the correct provision for their case, as it pertains to the failure to furnish reports to the Board, with a maximum penalty of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees. Section 15A(b), which imposes a penalty for each day of continued failure, was incorrectly applied. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the adjudicating officer had deliberately and consciously applied section 15A(b) instead of section 15A(a), despite the Tribunal's previous ruling in a similar case (HDFC) that non-compliance with regulation 3(4) attracts section 15A(a).

4. Imposition of Penalty and Consideration of Mitigating Factors:
The appellants argued that the delay was unintentional and based on a bonafide belief, supported by advice from their Lead Managers/legal adviser. They cited the Supreme Court's guidelines in Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa, which state that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief. The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellants acted deliberately in defiance of law or with dishonest intent. The delay did not result in any gain for the appellants or loss to any party. The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of a penalty was unwarranted, as the failure was a technical breach and the appellants acted in good faith.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The adjudicating officer's reliance on section 15A(b) was incorrect, and the penalty imposed was not justified given the appellants' bonafide belief and the technical nature of the breach. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in imposing penalties, considering all relevant circumstances and mitigating factors.