2023 (1) TMI 1466 - SC - SEBI

Procedural framework for issuing notices and filing affidavits under SEBI Act - We direct that subject to all just exceptions and office objections let notice be issued in all the pending applications including unregistered applications. Notices will be issued by all modes including dasti. Counter affidavit/reply will be filed within four weeks from the date of service. Rejoinder affidavit if any will be filed within four weeks from the date of service of the counter affidavit/reply. Copy of the applications along with the counter affidavit/ reply and rejoinder affidavit if any will be served on the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Shekhar Naphade Senior Advocate the learned counsel for the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sahara Group. The learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Shekhar Naphade Senior Advocate will appoint an Advocate-on-Record who will act as a nodal advocate and logistic coordinator. The Advocate-on-Record so appointed will be paid out of pocket and miscellaneous expenses as per the bills/invoices raised and Rs.10, 000/- per appearance in the Court. In addition the learned Advocate-on-Record will be paid Rs.40, 000/- (consolidated) as reading and preparation fee. Fee will be paid from the money/funds available with SEBI. Re-list for hearing and arguments on 18th 19th and 20th April 2023.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment presents several core issues for consideration:

Whether the procedural directives for issuing notices and filing affidavits were appropriately established and adhered to in the pending applications and writ petitions.
Whether the special leave petitions (SLP(C) NOS. 16009-16010/2022) have been rendered infructuous due to subsequent orders and developments.
Whether the High Court should expedite the disposal of pending matters related to the case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Procedural Directives for Notices and Affidavits

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court established a procedural framework for issuing notices and filing affidavits, which is a common practice to ensure all parties are informed and have the opportunity to respond.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court directed that notices be issued by all modes, including 'dasti' (personal service), to expedite the process and ensure timely communication.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that a structured timeline for filing counter affidavits and rejoinders was necessary to streamline the proceedings.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied procedural rules to ensure that all parties, including the Amicus Curiae, were kept informed and could participate effectively.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: There were no significant competing arguments on this procedural aspect, as it was a directive to facilitate the legal process.
Conclusions: The court concluded that establishing clear timelines and methods for notice issuance and affidavit filing was essential for procedural efficiency.

Issue 2: Infructuous Nature of Special Leave Petitions

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The concept of 'infructuous' petitions arises when subsequent developments render the original issues moot.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court accepted the joint statement from the parties that the special leave petitions were infructuous due to subsequent orders and developments.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court relied on the joint statement by the counsel for the parties, indicating that the petitions no longer required adjudication.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that when the relief sought is no longer relevant, the petition becomes infructuous.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: There were no competing arguments as both parties agreed on the infructuous nature of the petitions.
Conclusions: The court dismissed the special leave petitions as infructuous, allowing for the possibility of challenging other High Court orders if desired.

Issue 3: Expedited Disposal by the High Court

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Courts often urge expedited disposal of cases to avoid unnecessary delays in justice delivery.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court requested the High Court to dispose of related matters expeditiously, recognizing the need for timely resolution.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court did not cite specific evidence but emphasized the importance of efficient case management.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied principles of judicial efficiency and timely justice to encourage the High Court to act promptly.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: There were no competing arguments against the need for expedited proceedings.
Conclusions: The court concluded by urging the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending matters to ensure timely justice.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "To cut short delay and expedite hearing, we direct that, subject to all just exceptions and office objections, let notice be issued in all the pending applications, including unregistered applications."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principles of procedural efficiency, the infructuous nature of petitions when rendered moot, and the need for expedited judicial processes.
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
- Procedural directives were established to ensure timely notice and affidavit filing.
- The special leave petitions were dismissed as infructuous, with the option to challenge other orders remaining open.
- The High Court was urged to expedite the disposal of related matters.