2020 (7) TMI 386 - AT - SEBI

Unpublished price sensitive information being shared on a messaging platform 'Whatsapp' - whether the appellant is entitled for inspection and for supply of all the documents in possession of the adjudicating authority including those documents upon which no reliance has been placed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO') of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' )? - HELD THAT - Concept of fairness and principles of natural justice are in-built in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1995 and that the AO is required to supply the documents relied upon while serving the show cause notice. This is essential for the person to file an efficacious reply in his defence. The contention that the appellant is entitled for copies of all the documents in possession of the AO which has not been relied upon at the preliminary stage when the AO has not formed any opinion as to whether any inquiry at all is required to he held cannot be accepted. A bare reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules as referred to above do not provide supply of documents upon which no reliance has been placed by the AO, nor even the principles of natural justice require supply of such documents which has not been relied upon by the AO. We are of the opinion that we cannot compel the AO to deviate from the prescribed procedure and supply of such documents which is not warranted in law. In our view, on a reading of the Act and the Rules we find that there is no duty cast upon the AO to disclose or provide all the documents in his possession especially when such documents are not being relied upon. Practice of filing a compilation of judgments without citing during the course of arguments is not an accepted practice and consequently we are not required to consider such decisions which were no cited at the Bar. The request of the appellant for supply of the documents in possession of the authority is misconceived and cannot be accepted. Prima facie, the only object in making such demand is to obstruct the proceedings. We accordingly do not find any merit in the appeal and is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the appellant to inspection and supply of all documents in possession of the adjudicating authority, including those not relied upon in the show cause notice.
2. Application of principles of natural justice and fair play in the context of providing documents.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions under the SEBI Act and Rules, particularly regarding the procedure for holding an inquiry and imposing penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

Entitlement to Inspection and Supply of All Documents:
The core issue addressed in this judgment is whether the appellant is entitled to inspect and receive copies of all documents in the possession of the Adjudicating Officer (AO) of SEBI, including those not relied upon in the show cause notice. The appellant argued that for a fair defense, all documents, including those not relied upon, must be disclosed. The AO granted inspection only of documents referenced in the show cause notice, rejecting the request for additional documents.

Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play:
The appellant contended that the principles of natural justice necessitate the disclosure of all documents to effectively prepare a defense. Citing various judgments, the appellant emphasized that withholding documents impairs the ability to rebut allegations. The respondent countered that only documents relied upon in the show cause notice need to be disclosed, as per the principles of fair play and natural justice, and accused the appellant of attempting to delay proceedings.

Interpretation of SEBI Act and Rules:
The judgment analyzed relevant provisions under the SEBI Act and Rules, particularly Section 15G (penalty for insider trading) and Section 15-I (power to adjudicate). Rule 4 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995, which outlines the inquiry procedure, was scrutinized. The court noted that neither the Act nor the Rules explicitly require the AO to supply documents not relied upon in the show cause notice.

Judicial Precedents:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Natwar Singh vs Director of Enforcement, which held that fairness necessitates providing documents relied upon in the show cause notice. However, it does not extend to documents not relied upon. The appellant's reliance on other judgments, such as M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur and Union of India v. E. Bashyan, was found inapplicable to the present context.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant's request for all documents is not supported by the SEBI Act, Rules, or principles of natural justice. The AO is not obligated to provide documents not relied upon in the show cause notice. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted an additional opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice by February 28, 2020.

Summary:
The judgment primarily addressed whether the appellant is entitled to all documents in possession of the AO, including those not relied upon in the show cause notice. The court ruled that only documents referenced in the show cause notice need to be disclosed, as per the principles of natural justice and the SEBI Act and Rules. The appellant's broader request was deemed misconceived, and the appeal was dismissed.

← Previous Next →