2023 (12) TMI 260 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

Unlawful gains by fraudulent and manipulative strategy made by Reliance Company - responsibility of noticee no. 2 i.e. the Managing Director - violating Section 12A of the SEBI Act r/w Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI PFUTP Regulations - vicarious liability on both criminal and civil liability for contravention of the SEBI Act, Rules and Regulations - Liability against violations committed by the company - WTM issued directions to disgorge the unlawful gains of Rs. 447.27 crores along with interest @12% per annum and further prohibited the Company and the 12 entities from dealing in equity derivatives in the F&O segment of the stock exchanges directly or indirectly for a period of 1 year - Whether Section 27 of the SEBI Act prior to its amendment w.e.f. March 08, 2019 provided for vicarious liability only in respect of criminal proceedings initiated against a Company for contravention of the SEBI Act - Allegation of manipulative scheme - HELD THAT:- There is a distinction between “offence” and “contravention”. Consequently, one has to see the intention of the Parliament when it uses the word “offence” or where it uses the word “contravention”.

Section 27 prior to the amendment i.e. prior to March 08, 2019 had no application to civil liability and only after the amendment w.e.f. March 08, 2019 that Section 27 provided for vicarious liability on both criminal and civil liability for contravention of the SEBI Act, Rules and Regulations.

Finance Act, 2018 did not give retrospective effect to this amendment nor can such effect be inferred by necessary implication from the language of the amendment. The amendment, being substantive in nature can only be prospective and cannot have any retrospective application. The impugned order holding the amendment to be clarificatory in nature is thus patently erroneous.

The meaning of the term “offence” is required to be understood in the context in which it is used in the legislation. A suggestion that the term “offence” as occurring in the SEBI Act also covers civil proceedings is at odds with the range of provisions in Chapter VII of the SEBI Act which is a facet that was not even examined by the AO, much less ruled upon. We find that parliament was conscious of the usage of the two words “contravention” and “offence” in the SEBI Act and consciously chose to replace “offence” with “contravention” explicitly, in order to enlarge the scope of Section 27.

Section 27 of the SEBI Act as it stood prior to the amendment did not apply to civil liability and, therefore, the Managing Director could not be penalised by SEBI u/s 27 of the Act.

It is not necessary for us to deal with the issue as to whether the Managing Director could be made vicariously liable under Section 27 of the SEBI Act for contravention of the Section 12A and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations.

Board of Directors had specifically directed the two officers to explore, identify and implement optional avenues of funding and thereafter on 19.11.2007 the Board of Directors were informed by these two persons that the funds are being raised by disposing 5% of RPL shares through trades in RPL securities. In view of this impeccable evidence, notice No. 2 had discharged the burden under Section 27 of the Act and the onus shifted upon SEBI to prove that notice No. 2 was complicit. The finding that the appellant was complicit to the violations committed by the company and, therefore, liable under Section 27 of the Act is patently erroneous and is based on surmises and conjectures.

Specific denial was made by noticee no. 2 of his involvement in the trades executed by the two officers of the company. We also find that the AO in paragraph 64 holds that it is relevant to examine the role of the Managing Director in terms of direct involvement or knowledge with regard to the manipulative scheme or trades undertaken by the company. We find that the AO failed to establish either direct involvement or knowledge of the Managing Director with regard to the trades undertaken by the company and, therefore, the finding that the Managing Director was ‘complicit’ to the violations committed by the company through its two officers is based on surmises and conjectures and on the basis of the figment of his imagination.

The burden that the Managing Director of the Board of Directors exercised all due diligence was discharged and, therefore, the onus shifted back to SEBI to show that the Managing Director was responsible for the execution of the trades in question. In the absence of any finding being given by the AO establishing direct involvement or knowledge of the Managing Director in the execution of the trades the finding that the Managing Director was complicit in the execution of the trades with the two officers is purely based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, on this score noticee no. 2 i.e. the Managing Director cannot be held responsible for the execution of the shares in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The limited role played by the Board was only to take note of the transactions after they had been executed by the two senior executives. Without considering the findings of the WTM the AO in the impugned order has misdirected itself in holding that the Managing Director was responsible under Section 27 of the SEBI Act merely on the ground that he was the Managing Director.

Assuming that Section 27 of the SEBI Act is applicable for civil proceedings, we find that the requirement to impute a vicarious liability is not satisfied. The law is well settled that the mere fact that a person holds a designation of Managing Director does not suffice for imputing a vicarious liability to such person. It has been repeatedly held that the proof of “active role” in the alleged contravention in issue must be demonstrated by clear and concrete evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent as a necessary pre-condition for affixing vicarious liability.

Board of Directors in a company is supreme. The Managing Director reports to the Board. The Board has the full authority to delegate any function to any officers of the Company to the exclusion of the Managing Director. The contention of the respondent that the Managing Director is responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company and the officials report to him and, therefore, the Managing Director is responsible is deemed to be in the knowledge of the transactions is not applicable in the case in hand, especially when the Board had specifically authorised the two senior most officials to execute the trades in question. We also find that in the instant case the two officials have reported to the Board and not to the Managing Director.

AO in the impugned order does not arrive at any conclusion that the appellant was involved in the actual conceptualisation and execution of the alleged trades by RIL. We are of the opinion, that whereas the AO recognises that knowledge by the appellant was a pre-requisite for a finding that noticee no. 2 was liable for RIL’s alleged violation yet without giving a conclusive finding has travelled beyond the show cause notice to conclude in paragraph 72 of the impugned order that noticee no. 2 had implicit knowledge of the alleged trades and authorised the implementation plan. The AO further went on to hold that it is highly unlikely that noitcee no. 2 was not aware of the execution of the trades. The findings given by the AO in our opinion is purely based on surmises and conjectures.

In this regard, the word “complicit” means involvement with others in an activity which is unlawful. On the other hand, the word “implicit” is suggestive though not directly expressed.

Thus, in the absence of any specific finding by the AO on noticee no. 2 complicit involvement in the execution of the implementation plan or in the execution of the trades, the AO cannot dwell into surmises and conjectures and base its findings on presumption to hold that the noticee no. 2 was implicitly involved in the transactions on the ground of being a Managing Director and which implies a high level of accountability of knowledge of overall functioning of the Company.

The burden under Section 27 was discharged by noticee no. 2 and the AO has miserably failed to prove that noticee no. 2 was involved in the execution of the trades carried out by two senior executives.

Inordinate delay in the initiation of the proceedings against the noticees - Both noticee nos. 3 and 4 are involved inter alia in the business of construction of building, infrastructure, setting up of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and acquisition of properties and invested their idle funds by lending the same by way of short term inter corporate deposits to other companies in order to earn interest and, if necessary, also avail inter corporate deposits from other companies by paying interest - After 10 years the show cause notice dated 21.11.2017 was issued alleging that noticee nos. 3 and 4 were promoted by the Reliance Group and that noticee nos. 3 and 4 by financing the monies to Vinamra were complicit and aided and abetted the manipulation of the trade executed by RIL through its 11 agents - AO has rejected the contention of the appellants holding that there is no delay on the ground that SEBI had taken an internal decision to await the Section 11B proceedings against RIL and its agents before taking further action in the matter.

HELD THAT:- The Limitation starts running from the day the impugned order is passed. Limitation order does not stop on the whims and fancies of a regulator. The regulator cannot stop the clock on the ground that they would await the decision in proceedings initiated u/s 11B before taking further action in the matter. In our opinion, there is no legal bar of initiation of adjudication proceedings during pendency of Section 11B proceedings. In our opinion, adjudication proceedings and Section 11B proceedings can be held in parallel.

There has been an inordinate delay in the issuance of the show cause notice. Even though there is no period of limitation prescribed in the Act and the Regulations for issuance of a show cause notice and for completion of the adjudication proceedings, nonetheless, the authorities are required to exercise its powers within a reasonable period

Time starts to run from the date of commission of the alleged violation. The respondents being aware of this fact and having knowledge of the alleged transactions chose deliberately not to initiate proceedings and, consequently, the action of the respondents cannot be justified by initiating a belated show cause notice.

There is a violation of principles of natural justice in not supplying the documents to noticee nos. 3 and 4 which documents were relied upon in the show cause notice. We find that noticee nos. 3 and 4 had repeatedly addressed letters to SEBI on 11.06.2018 and 25.06.2018 requesting certain documents which were specifically mentioned in the show cause notice. Some of these documents were provided by SEBI vide letter dated 17.06.2019 and 08.03.2019. The documents which were not provided were specifically again asked for which also included a copy of the investigation report.

As decided in T. TAKANO VERSUS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. [2022 (2) TMI 907 - SUPREME COURT] investigation report is an intrinsic component of the Board’s satisfaction for determining whether there has been any violation of the regulations and that the investigation report forms the material on the basis of which a show cause notice is issued. Since the show cause notice is on the basis of the investigation report there was an obligation imposed upon the respondent to provide the documents asked for by the appellants which they failed to supply. Non supply of the documents was violative of the principles of natural justice. We are also of the opinion that prejudice caused because of non-disclosure of the relevant material was writ large.

On merits finding has been given by the AO that on a combined reading of the Facility Agreement and Agency Agreement it can be inferred that noticee nos. 3 and 4 had prior knowledge of the scheme of alleged manipulative trades by RIL and that noticee nos. 3 and 4 were fully aware that the funds given by them to Vinamra was meant for financing the alleged trades in question and, therefore, noticee nos. 3 and 4 aided and abetted in the manipulative scheme.

This finding in our opinion cannot be sustained as Facility Agreement was signed on August 04, 2007 and September 22, 2007. The execution of these documents is not disputed nor there is any allegation that these agreements were manufactured for the purpose of this case. The starting point for the alleged manipulative scheme by RIL was the decision taken in an around October 30, 2007 to sell RPL shares. These facts are noted in paragraph 26 of the impugned order. On or before October 30, 2007 noticee no. 3 had already advanced funds to the tune of Rs. 625 crores and noticee no. 4 had loaned an amount of Rs. 45 crores on or before October 30, 2007. We are of the opinion, that as on the date of the execution of the Facility Agreement it was not possible for noticee nos. 3 and 4 to have knowledge that RIL would sell shares in the cash segment in November 2007 and that RIL would take positions in the futures segment through its agents. There is no evidence to show that prior to October 30, 2007 the decision of RIL to sell shares of RPL and appoint 12 agents was known to noticee nos. 3 and 4.

Execution of the Facility Agreement had nothing to do with the Agency Agreement which came two months later and, therefore, the Facility Agreement and the Agency Agreement cannot be read together. The two agreements are wholly unconnected and cannot raise any kind of an inference as held by the AO in the impugned order.

The evidence that has been brought on record does not indicate that noticee nos. 3 and 4 could have known in August / September 2007, namely, at the time of execution of the Facility Agreement that RIL would decide in end of October to sell the RPL shares or that RIL would take position in the November futures through its agents or that RIL would enter into agency agreements with the 12 agents or that RIL would trade in the last 10 minutes on November 29, 2007 in such a manner so as to suppress the price of the RPL shares. Thus, in our opinion, when the Facility Agreement was executed, noticee nos. 3 and 4 could not have known that RIL would enter into the cash segment or would take positions in the November 2007 futures.

Assumption / presumption drawn by the AO that the Facility Agreement was entered into solely for the purpose of funding RIL transactions in the November 2007 futures market is wholly erroneous. Pursuant to the Facility Agreements ICDs were placed as early as on September 2007 much before the subject transactions took place and continued to be placed from time to time till March 2008. The finding given by the AO that Rs. 2,775 crores advanced by noticee nos. 3 and Rs. 550 crores advanced by noticee no. 4, to Vinamra were utilised by the 12 agents for the purpose of funding the manipulative trades of RIL is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. The ICDs given by noticee nos. 3 and 4 were from September to March whereas the funds required by the 12 agents were from November 01, 2007 to November 06, 2007 when they took short positions in the futures segment.

AO however has considered the entire loans of Rs. 2775 crores given by noticee no. 3 and Rs. 550 crores given by noticee no. 4 from the period September 2007 to March 2008. We may note that noticee no. 4 did not lend any money to Vinamra between November 01, 2007 to November 06, 2007 and that noticee no. 3 had given a loan of Rs. 350 crores in two transactions of November 05, 2007 and November 06, 2007 to Vinamra. Thus, the finding of the AO that Rs. 2775 crores and Rs. 550 crores totalling Rs. 3325 crores were given by noticee nos. 3 and 4 that funded the 12 agents for the alleged trades is patently erroneous.

One of the basic charge against noticee nos. 3 and 4 was that noticee nos. 3 and 4 were promoted by Reliance Group. This allegation was found to be false. The AO found that Anand Jain was the Chairman of noticee nos. 3 and 4 and that noticee nos. 3 and 4 were not promoted by the Reliance Group. Once this fact became clear that noticee nos. 3 and 4 were not promoted by the Reliance Group, the AO should have dropped the matter instead of going into a tirade that Anand Jain was closely associated with Reliance Group as a strategic advisor or that Sanjay Punkhia was a common director of noticee nos. 3 and 4 and Vinamra and, therefore, there is a connection between noticee nos. 3 and 4 with Reliance Group. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the AO in coming to a conclusion that noticee nos. 3 and 4 are connected to RIL is baseless and cannot be accepted. Such indirect connection without any further evidence of their involvement cannot be a ground to hold that noticee nos. 3 and 4 were aware of the manipulative trades allegedly conducted by RIL and its agents. It is thus not necessary for us to go into the question of their connection in detail.

It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether noticee no. 3 and 4 by giving loans to Vinamra could be held to be dealing in securities violating the PFUTP Regulations as in our view no case is made out of any violation by noticee nos. 3 and 4. Appeal allowed.