9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1491 - HC - SEBIScope of settlement proceedings - discretion vested in SEBI with an obligation - SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 ( Regulations ) - HELD THAT - Viewed from any perspective, these Petitions, like the Settlement Application, are entirely without substance. We understand quite clearly now that the only purpose of the Settlement Application and indeed these Writ Petitions was to prolong and delay the adjudication of the show cause notice. If there was any doubt about this, it is surely put to rest by one look at the prayers in the Binny Petition, and in particular prayer clause (b) which is really the prayer that is being sought, for a stay of the adjudication on the show cause notice. Interestingly, although prayer clause (a) ought to be really for a certiorari not a mandamus, there is not even a prayer for a direction to SEBI to reconsider the Settlement Application. An order on this Writ Petition would effectively put an end to all SEBI action as a regulator. That is simply unthinkable. These Petitions have taken an inordinate amount of time when our dockets are already overcrowded. We believe these Petitions are now fit cases for orders of costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the Settlement Application by SEBI. 2. Compliance with SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018. 3. Discretion of SEBI in settlement proceedings. 4. Impact of pending settlement applications on show cause notice proceedings. 5. Judicial review of SEBI's discretion in settlement matters. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of the Settlement Application by SEBI: The petitions challenged SEBI's rejection of a Settlement Application submitted by Binny Ltd. SEBI's rejection was based on allegations that Binny Ltd employed deceptive practices, diverted funds, and manipulated financial results, causing losses to investors and affecting market integrity. SEBI concluded that the alleged default attracted provisions of Regulation 5(2)(ii) and 5(2)(iii) of the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018, which precluded settlement due to the market-wide impact and loss to a large number of investors. 2. Compliance with SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018: The court examined whether SEBI adhered to the Settlement Proceedings Regulations. The regulations allow SEBI the discretion to reject settlement applications if the alleged default has a market-wide impact, causes investor losses, or affects market integrity. The court found SEBI's rejection aligned with these regulations, emphasizing that the application lacked substance as it proposed no specific settlement terms. 3. Discretion of SEBI in Settlement Proceedings: The court underscored SEBI's discretionary power in settlement matters, as outlined in the regulations. It rejected the petitioners' argument that SEBI was obligated to consider the Settlement Application on merits, highlighting that the regulations provide SEBI the discretion to reject applications without detailed examination if they lack merit. The court noted that the regulations were designed to prevent protracted litigation and ensure regulatory compliance. 4. Impact of Pending Settlement Applications on Show Cause Notice Proceedings: The court addressed the petitioners' attempt to delay the adjudication of the show cause notice by filing a Settlement Application. Regulation 8(1) states that the filing of a settlement application does not affect the continuation of proceedings, except that the final order is kept in abeyance until the application is disposed of. The court criticized the petitioners' strategy to prolong proceedings by filing an application without substance, aiming to keep the show cause notice pending indefinitely. 5. Judicial Review of SEBI's Discretion in Settlement Matters: The court emphasized that it would not issue a mandamus to SEBI to accept a settlement, as SEBI's discretion in settlement matters is paramount. It referenced the Shilpa Stock Broker case, reaffirming that a person facing regulatory action has no vested right to insist on a consensual settlement. The court concluded that the petitions lacked merit and were an attempt to delay regulatory proceedings, resulting in their dismissal with costs. Overall, the court upheld SEBI's discretion in rejecting the Settlement Application, emphasizing the importance of regulatory compliance and the prevention of protracted litigation. The petitions were dismissed with costs, reinforcing SEBI's authority to act in the public interest and maintain market integrity.
|
