|
Advanced Search Options
SEBI - Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 555 Records
-
2021 (4) TMI 1367
Fraudulent GDR issue - Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market - Sigle entity subscriber to the GDR issue - penalty on directors - HELD THAT:- As appellant Mr. Govind Das, Mr. Bharat Kumar and Mr. Avichal were admittedly independent non executive directors. The resolution itself would show that they did not participate in the issue of GDR proceeds at any point of time after passing of the resolution. All the necessary followup was to be carried by the Managing Director. No case of adverse inference that they should have taken efforts to bring back GDR proceeds was made out against them in any of the impugned order as argued before us and, therefore, they could not have been penalised or restrained as detailed supra.
Appellant Mrs. Jyoti Bankda is concerned, admittedly on the very day of the passing of the resolution she had resigned from the Directorship of the Company and the same was accepted. Necessarily she cannot be made liable for the subsequent acts of entering into account charge agreement by appellant Mr. Ajay Bankda, the Managing Director with the EURAM Bank on the strength of the resolution. Therefore, she also could not have been penalised or restrained by the respondent SEBI.
Appellant Mr. Ajay Bankda the then Managing Director of the Company, the Company itself and appellant Mr. Jagdish Bagaria, the Whole Time Director are concerned, they cannot escape the liability. The Company would be liable for the acts of the Managing Director. So also the Managing Director is also liable for any default committed by the Company.
Appellant Mr. Jagdish Bagaria was the Whole Time Directors and, therefore, he cannot plead that he was not aware of the day to day affair of the Company which included non return of GDR proceeds to the Company. Their involvement in the fraudulent activity as detailed supra is writ large from the record. Though the appellant Mr. Ajay Bankda claims that he had merely signed the documents religiously on instructions by the Lead Manager, being a Managing Director he cannot claim that he was not aware of the result of the account charge agreement i.e. misappropriation of the GDR proceeds.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1366
Request for adjournment has been made on the ground that Mr. Prakash Shah, appellant has still not recovered from his illness. The matter is adjourned. List on May 21, 2021.
Parties are directed to take instructions from the Registrar 48 hrs. before the date fixed in order to find out as to whether the matter would be taken up for hearing through video conference or through physical hearing.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1273
Delay of 5 years or more in initiating action by the SEBI - HELD THAT:- Issue of delay can also be looked into by the appellant – SEBI while passing a final order keeping in view the various judgments. It is not a case where the show cause notice has not been issued by a competent authority and only on the point of delay, the notice could not have been quashed in the manner and method it has been done. See MR. MUKKARAM JAN VERSUS SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [2021 (1) TMI 1174 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
Petition preferred by the respondent against the show cause notice dated 20.10.2016 and notice dated 20.8.2019, was certainly a premature writ petition and therefore, the writ appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The appellant SEBI is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The appellant – Board shall not grant unnecessary adjournment in the matter and in case need so arises for grant of an adjournment, reasons for such adjournment shall be recorded in writing.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1263
The Supreme Court of India disposed of the appeals in terms of the signed order, leaving all questions of law open. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1138
Offence under SEBI - complainant foisting vicarious liability upon the accused No.1 - criminal breach of trust of the complainant and sold its shares to their own Company - HELD THAT:- After applying a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT] it is clear that, the accused No.1-Morgan is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the complaint. It is to be noted here that, the Letter of Pledge (Agreement) dated 7th March, 2000 is executed by the Authorized Signatory of the complaint on behalf of it, in favour of the accused No.1 company and therefore also impleadment of Morgan (A-No.1) is necessary for proper adjudication of the present complaint. The contention that, the accused No.1 is being foisted with vicarious liability, is the defence and a specious plea raised by the said accused. The accused No.1 will have to prove the said defence at the time of trial by leading cogent and plausible evidence in that behalf. The aforestated deliberation leads to draw an irresistible conclusion that, the accused No.1 company is a necessary and relevant party to the said complaint and it cannot be dropped from the present proceedings at its inception.
The accused with dishonest intention have committed criminal breach of trust, deceived the complainant and have committed the act of cheating against it. In view thereof, the complainant succeeds.
In view of the statement made by the complainant in the present proceedings that, the complainant hereinafter will not pursue application of Section 15-HA of the SEBI Act in the said complaint, Section 15-HA of SEBI Act is dropped from the Order dated 22nd March, 2017 passed below Exh-1 in CC No.56/SW/2011. The Order dated 22nd March, 2017 passed by the learned Magistrate is modified to that extent only.
In view of the above, Writ Petition filed by the complainant are allowed.
The present complaint filed in the month of February, 2011 by the complainant, is pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai for last more than 10 years. In view thereof, learned Magistrate seized of the said complaint is directed to expedite hearing of the said complaint and to make an endeavour to dispose off the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of present Order. It is needless to mention that, the period during which the smooth functioning of the concerned Court is paralyzed or affected due to the present pandemic situation, will be excluded from computation of the said period of one year.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1032
Fraudulent collective investment scheme - HELD THAT:- The applicants company and their agents were engaged in promoting the scheme of the company by selling certificates with a promise of higher rate of interest on the eventuality of the plans of term, hence, it can be said that the activity of the applicants' company appears to be covered under Section 2 (c) of the Act, 1978 and therefore, promotion of such scheme, which is banned under Section 3 of the Act, 1978 is punishable under Section 4 of the same Act, 1978, regarding which, there is sufficient evidence present for framing of charge against the applicants.
As regards framing of charge under Section 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, report of the Competent Authority does not appear to be a condition precedent for lodging of FIR or framing of charge against the persons concerned. Section 13 of the Act, 2005 empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence without being committed the case to it. As the Court of Sessions Judge is notified under Section 4 of the Act and also that there being no procedure prescribed for filing of complaint in this Act, shows that the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable, hence, lodging of FIR under Section 10 of the Act, 2005 is well within the law. Further there is evidence present that depositors were defrauded by the HBN Company in which the applicants are directors, which is prima-facie case for framing charge under Section 10 of the Act, 2005.
Hence, after considering on all the submission and the material present in the charge-sheet against these applicants, this Court is of the opinion that prima-facie case for framing of charge against these applicants, framed by the trial Court, is present. Hence, all the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed, which are dismissed accordingly.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1437
Penalty u/s 15HA of the SEBI Act - Jurisdiction of the Special Court treating offences committed territorially under the SEBI Act - scope of proceedings after the amendment of the SEBI Act 2014 and offences under the SEBI Act committed prior to the 2002 amendment - HELD THAT:- As petitioner seeks almost a mercy relief qua the interest payable on the penalty imposed of Rs.1 crores which amount stands finalized right up to the Supreme Court. However, it is not a case where the petitioner has paid this amount and seeks some indulgence on interest.
At the request of petitioner on instructions last opportunity is granted to deposit the amount of Rs.1 crore with the respondent on or before 15.04.2021, failing which no further consideration will take place and the Special Leave Petition will stand dismissed without any further order.
List for directions on 15.04.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1281
Offence under SEBI Act - Recovery proceedings - Attachment orders - whether recovery proceedings can be initiated straight away under section 28A of the SEBI Act without issuing notice for adjudicating a dispute between the regulator and the appellants and without giving an opportunity to the appellants to contend that they are not associated companies of PACL? - HELD THAT:- Assuming that the Recovery Officer does have the jurisdiction to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 28A is it not necessary for the Recovery Officer to issue notice before proceedings with the recovery of the amount and, further whether attachment order could be passed without issuing any notice especially when there is no evidence in the impugned order that there is a possibility that the appellants would run away with the money.
Appellants is a running Company and the financial year is coming to an end on 31st March. The attachment order attaching the bank accounts is certainly not in the interest of the smooth running of the business of the Company.
We direct the respondent to file a reply within two weeks from today. Two weeks thereafter to the appellant to file rejoinder. The matter would be listed for admission and for final disposal on 29th April, 2021.
In view of the undertaking given by the appellants today we direct that the attachment orders passed against the appellants shall remain in abeyance. The appellants would be permitted to operate their accounts and make necessary expenditures for the smooth running of the business.
-
2021 (3) TMI 806
Insider trading - appellants entered into suspected insider trading being privy to unpublished price sensitive information ("UPSI") of declining profits of TJL and disposed of their promoter shareholding and thereby avoided losses - violation of Code of Conduct applicable to “insiders by not taking pre-clearances from the concerned authority of the company for trading in the shares of the company during the UPSI period - contention of the appellants that the impugned order has been passed in haste and that too without show-causing the appellants and thereby not providing them an opportunity of presenting the full facts - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at reasonable length, we proceed to dispose of the appeal at the stage of admission itself without calling for reply/rejoinder etc. as this matter is squarely covered by our orders in Abhijit Rajan's case [2019 (11) TMI 1598 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI] and Dr. Udayant Malhoutra's case [2020 (6) TMI 742 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI] wherein held even if it is assumed that the information was is a price sensitive information, still the appellant cannot be blamed of insider trading for the reasons that he did not trade "on the basis of the information". The appellant was able to show his dire need to infuse fund in the entity under the master restructuring agreement to implement a CDR package as detailed supra. He was even required to sell his agricultural land and flat details of which are already given hereinabove.appellants therein were able to rebut the presumption that they traded on the basis of UPSI as they had a necessity to sell the shares.
In the present appeal before us, however, since all the facts are yet to be analysed by the respondent SEBI upon hearing the appellant, we do not propose to make any comment on the merit of the case at this stage.
Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned Order, except as a Show Cause Notice (SCN), upon deposit of the amounts as specified below. Appellants are directed to file a reply to the SCN within four weeks from today. The respondent will decide the matter finally after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant either through physical hearing or through video conference within six months thereafter. In the interim, in order to safeguard the interests of the investors in the securities market and also to protect the integrity of the securities market, we further direct the appellants to deposit the specified amounts.
-
2021 (3) TMI 757
Violation of the provisions of PFTUP Regulations - artificial trades - manipulative trading - there was a pattern of trading and the price of the shares went up in pre-planned manner by engaging in small trades sometimes of one share each but no explanation of the same was offered - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal held that the placing of orders in a very small number generally may point towards the possible violation of the provisions of PFTUP Regulations still it is possible that an investor observing the movement of the scrip could be placing orders in the system without any intention to manipulate the market. Finding that there is no connection of the appellants therein either with the company or with the group connected with the company it was found that merely irrational behaviour of the investor, for want of connection, it cannot be said that they were trading in manipulative or fraudulent manner
Finding that the scrip of Mapro was not a miracle scrip and taking into consideration the doubtful pattern of the trades carried out by the appellant therein this Tribunal though set aside the direction to pay penalty imposed upon the appellant therein, it was held that warning to the appellant that repetition of trading of similar nature as impugned one will lead to penal consequences.
All the appellants are small investors. They are admittedly close relatives. However, they are not found to be connected with any other parties involved are not anyway connected to the group entities as described in the appeal of Bharti Goyal [2020 (8) TMI 843 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI]
In the circumstances, the present appeal is partly allowed without any order as to costs. The direction of the adjudicating officer to pay penalty against each of the appellants is hereby set aside. Instead the appellants are warned that repetition of trading of similar nature may lead to penal consequence. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
2021 (3) TMI 349
Compensatory interest on increased offer price - valuation of the shares to be done in accordance with Regulation 8(2)(e) of the SAST Regulations - Application for payment of interest rejected - appellant has prayed for compensatory interest at the rate of 10% per annum on increased offer price to be paid from April 10, 2018 to October 9, 2018 and 18% compensatory interest from January 31, 2020 till date of payment - HELD THAT:- Interest starts running from the date when respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement to acquire 100% ownership of FML which is April 10, 2018. The period of interest stops when respondent No. 2 submitted the draft letter of offer which was published on October 9, 2018. For this period, namely, April 10, 2018 to October 9, 2018 interest has been paid. After SEBI finalized the price of the shareholders on July 4, 2019 interest becomes payable and which has been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations from August 21, 2019 to January 30, 2020 when the amount was eventually paid.
Reason for not paying the interest by respondent No. 2 for the intervening period i.e. from the date when the draft letter of offer was published on October 9, 2018 till the date of finalizing the price by SEBI on July 4, 2019 is, that this period was not in the hands of the respondent No. 2. We are of the opinion that the respondent No. 2 cannot be saddled with payment of interest for the period when the price was required to be finalized by SEBI under Regulation 8(16) of the SAST Regulations. It would be unfair on the part of SEBI as well as on the part of the Tribunal to saddle payment of interest upon the acquirer respondent No. 2 for the period when the price was being determined by SEBI.
The contention that the shareholders should not suffer due to long pending litigation initiated by the acquirer and, therefore, the acquirer should be directed to pay to the shareholders the interest is erroneous.
When SEBI had directed the acquirer to raise the share price from ₹ 400/- to ₹ 608.46 on March 20, 2019, the appellant himself filed appeal No. 182 of 2019 and again filed appeal No. 359 of 2019 when SEBI passed a fresh order fixing the price on July 4, 2019. Thus, in our view no interest is payable from the date of filing of the publication of the draft letter of offer, i.e., from October 10, 2018 to July 4, 2019 when SEBI eventually fixed the price of the shares.
We do not find any error in the order of SEBI rejecting the application for grant of interest.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1382
Offence under SEBI - trading pattern created a misleading appearance which amounted to manipulation in the price of scrip - off market transfers at a price much lower than the Last Traded Price [LTP] - miniscule shares were being sold by the appellants when there was a demand for more shares and that the appellants had a substantive holding in the shares - HELD THAT:- Except notices/appellant Narayan Das Rathi nobody was holding the shares prior to 26th February, 2013 and thereafter the shares were transferred in off market transactions to the 27 entities either directly from him or through Appellant Devindar Kumar, for a price less than the price offered through pending buy orders on the exchange platform. Thereafter those shares were sold on miniscule proportion on the platform of SEBI for a higher price though buy orders for this higher price used to be in existence and sufficient share were available to sell, thus substantially contributing to the Last Traded Price (LTP). Tables no. 3 and 4 of the impugned order shows that they had contributed to 70.96 % of the total trades during the period in question.
While some of the appellants like Kusum Devi Baid, Kamal Baid, Dev Kishan Mal, Kuldeep Singh, Devindar Kumar, Rachana Atal, Debashish Chowdhary did not explain before the Adjudicating Officer by failing to file reply to the show cause notice, some of the appellant though filed reply were unable to explain as to why they put sell order on miniscule quantity when a comparatively large buy orders were pending for the price which was more than price they purchased. They simply defended their action by replying that selling of shares in miniscule quantities is not illegal.
It is true that no direct connection between the seller and the buyer is established in the present case. We do not have material to find out whether respondent SEBI had investigated the said connection. However, in my view the insistence solely on the establishment of the connection or non-prosecution of the buyers would be against the very principle that the facts are to be established on preponderance of probability and not on the requirement that the facts in issue should be proved beyond reasonable doubt or to the hilt.
The Tribunal has to consider all the probabilities either favouring or against the premise and to repeat, if majority of probabilities points toward the existence of fact in issue, then the premise/ the charge will have to be upheld.
To sum up, we find that trading in the scrip of Dhanleela was suspended on the stock exchange platform for a period of six years. After revocation of the suspension there was no trade at all for a period of 10 months. It was thus a highly illiquid stock. Thereafter the trade opened at Rs. 17.50. During patch one investigation period i.e. from 26th February, 2013 to 9th October, 2013 it reached to 427.85. The appellant and the other notices were the major contributors to this fact through abnormal transactions. Their sell on the exchange platform created a picture of rosy picture of large scale trade quantities through miniscule sale of shares. Thereafter in patch 2 investigation period i.e. from 10th October, 2013 to 5th December, 2013 the price showed the same trend with the same modus operandi. The fundamentals of the company however did not match with this price swing. These appellants had no shares with them before these transactions.
They had received shares in off market transaction either directly or indirectly from the Appellant Narayan Das Rathi for lower price than the price available on exchange platform. No logical explanation is forthcoming from the appellants for these abnormal affairs. Therefore only conclusion that can be drawn in my view is that all these transactions were non genuine and were entered into only to manipulate the price of the shares of Dhanleela.
It is true that a connection between buyer and seller or between promoter/company and the buyer or seller would be a strong indicator to conclude that there were manipulative trades. In the absence of the same however, this Tribunal is not handicapped in arriving at the above conclusion as preponderance of probabilities definitely lies in favour of the charge as detailed above. In the circumstances in my view the appeals deserve to be dismissed without any order as to costs. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Misc. Application is also accordingly disposed of.
In view of the majority opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed in so far as the appellants are concerned.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1362
Violations of provisions of PFUTP Regulations, 2003 - misleading appearance of trading in the scrip to the market participants - Whether the Noticees are connected entities? - HELD THAT:- As observed from records that some of the connected group entities have been made Noticees in the instant proceedings while some other entities have been reportedly proceeded against in separate proceedings including adjudication proceedings. Be that as it may, the Board has set its criteria and exercised intelligible differentia while selecting cases/entities for proposing action and the Noticees cannot plead innocence by merely basing their arguments on such extraneous reasons.
Also find it appropriate to observe that though the Noticees have claimed parity with the other entities, who have not been proceeded with, however, these Noticees have not brought any specific instance to my attention which are factually identical or similar to that of the entities so as to stake a claim that they also ought to have been exonerated from the instant proceedings. Considering the foregoing, Reject this contention of the Noticees in limine and do not find it necessary to further deal with this contention.
These entities are found to be connected to each other and almost all of their trades have been entered with the connected entities and from their unusual trading pattern in the scrip of the Company, it cannot be stated with confidence that the trades executed by them were mere coincidences without there being any commonality between the Noticees and their trading pattern do not in the scrip of Rutron do not suggest for abnormality. It can be reasonably concluded that the Noticees are enjoying close proximities as well as close connection amongst themselves.
Whether the acts of the Noticee nos. 12, 13 and 14 during Patch-1 of the Investigation period have resulted in violations of the provisions of regulation 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and regulation 4 (1) and 4 (2) (a) and (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003? - 3 Noticees have failed to give any plausible reason/explanation to defend themselves against the charges levelled against them in the SCN. Further, the roles played by the 3 Noticees to artificially increase the price during the Patch-1 need to be perceived as the acts of a united group of entities which was aimed at manipulating the price of the scrip of Rutron over a period of time by cumulatively contributing to the LTP of the scrip during the Patch-1 of the Investigation Period. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble SAT and after considering the trading pattern, and the manner and frequency with which such trades were executed by the 3 Noticees, as constrained to hold that the Noticee nos. 12, 13 and 14 were not acting as genuine market participants and had no bona fide intention to trade in the shares of Rutron.
Therefore, hold that the trading behavior of Noticees nos. 12 to 14 during Patch-1 of the Investigation Period of vis-à-vis the scrip of Rutron has been conspicuously ill motivated, fraudulent and was targeted to manipulate the price of the shares of Rutron hence, is in violation of regulations 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and 4 (1), 4 (2) (a), (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003.
Whether the acts of the Noticee nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11 during Patch-2 of Investigation Period have resulted in violations of the provisions of regulation 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and regulation 4 (1) and 4 (2) (a) and (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003? - As unusual LTP contributing trades executed amongst the connected entities strengthens the allegations made in the SCN that these trades have been deliberately executed with a fraudulent intent of manipulating the price and causing misleading appearances of trading in the scrip, thereby causing inducement to the investors at large., It is highly inconceivable that the trades of the 6 Noticees executed on an anonymous trading platform matched with their connected entities on a numerous occasions by sheer coincidence of matching of orders and not by any pre-set design keeping in view the inter se nexus that existed amongst the 6 Noticees during the relevant period.
In fact, the repeated matching of such orders suggests how these 6 Noticees have deployed a strategy to defeat the objective of even an anonymous trading platform and have successfully ensured that their trades match with each other as per their preconceived strategy to mark up the price of the scrip of the Company. Therefore, in my considered view, the alleged trades can’t by any standard be categorized as trades executed in normal course of trading in securities market.
As glaringly show that the trading conduct of Noticee nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 11 was evidently laced with malicious intent and fraudulent motive, hence, on the basis of the reasons recorded above, hold that the Noticee nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 11 have violated regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and regulation 4(1), 4(2) (a) and (e) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 while trading in the scrip of Rutron during Patch-2 of the Investigation period.
Whether the acts of the Noticee nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 during Patch-3 of Investigation Period have resulted in violations of the provisions of regulation 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and regulation 4 (1) and 4 (2) (a) and (e) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003? - As manner and frequency with which such trades were executed by the above noted six Noticees, we are constrained to hold that the Noticee nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 were not acting as genuine market participants and had no bona fide intention to trade in the shares of Rutron.
As having found that the charges levelled against Noticees in the SCN stand established, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B(1) read with Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, hereby hold that considering the volume of trades executed and percentage of contribution to the LTP by the Noticees and their impact on the price of the scrip of Rutron, it would be proper and in the interest of Securities Market that such entities should be restrained from being associated with the Securities Market and accordingly, restrain all the Noticees from accessing the securities market and further prohibit them from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner, for a period of six (06) months from the date of this Order.
As clarified that during the period of restraint, the existing holding of securities of the Noticees including units of mutual funds, shall remain frozen.
Obligation of the aforesaid Noticees in respect of settlement of securities, if any, purchased or sold in the cash segment of the recognized stock exchange (s), as existing on the date of this Order, can take place irrespective of the restraint/prohibition imposed by this Order, only in respect of pending unsettled transactions, if any. Further, all open positions, if any, of the aforesaid Noticees in the F&O segment of the stock exchange, are permitted to be squared off, irrespective of the restraint/prohibition imposed by this Order.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1177
SEBI seeking information from the petitioner regarding alleged deemed public issue - HELD THAT:- Awareness Programme conducted by the SEBI during the year 2017, a few investors reported that the petitioner Company has been mobilising funds from the public and have issued bonus shares. As alleged that the petitioner subsequently stopped buying back the shares - A preliminary enquiry made by the SEBI, it was noticed that the petitioner-Company has passed resolutions authorising issue of equity shares to any person including existing members of the Company in any manner the board may deem fit.
The language of the resolution indicated that what was intended by the Company was not strictly private placement. It was under the said circumstances that the SEBI issued notices to the petitioner-Company. Though the information sought for were expected to be maintained by the petitioner in their statutory records and registers, such information was not made available to the SEBI. It was under such circumstances that the SEBI has issued the show-cause notices impugned in the writ petition.
The information sought for by the SEBI related back to the year 2001. However, the required information are those which are required by the petitioner to be statutorily maintained. Therefore, the delay in issuing these Show Cause Notices, cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner.
Reasons for the delay in initiation of the proceedings, it is to be noted that under Section 11(2)(f) of the SEBI Act, 1992, promoting investor education is one of the functions of the Board. In one of such meetings of investors, allegations were raised against the petitioner. The SEBI made their own enquiry and noted that the annual reports of the Company indicated authorising issue of shares to any person including existing members of the Company in any manner the Board may deem fit. The language of the resolutions indeed gives rise to a suspicion or indication that the Company proposed to issue shares to the public. It is for the said reason that the SEBI sought explanation from the petitioner.
Petitioner, instead of cooperating with the SEBI, providing requisite information, has approached this Court challenging the show-cause notices. Allegation against the petitioner and the information sought for by the SEBI would indicate that what was sought for by SEBI are information a Company is expected to maintain.
Going through the show-cause notices impugned in the writ petition, it cannot be said that jurisdictional facts necessary to initiate proceedings do not exist. Prima facie, the delay in initiation of the proceedings will not cause prejudice to the petitioner, in the nature of the information sought for by SEBI. Even if the petitioner is incapacitated to provide any information required by the SEBI, the petitioner can very well give reasoned explanation for the same to the SEBI.
The issue is presently only at a show-cause stage. It will be thoroughly inappropriate for this Court to interfere with the statutory proceedings at this stage.
-
2021 (2) TMI 913
Debenture Trustees liability in default - Violation of SEBI Act - Company issued Debentures which are deemed public issues, without complying with the statutory requirements for public issue - Company failed to provide the details as to whether the consent of the Debenture holders has been obtained, for extending the tenure of the Debentures - whether by acting as Debenture Trustees of the Company without having registration as required under Section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulation 7 of SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regulations, 1993, they have violated law. Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992? - HELD THAT: - No Debenture Trustee can deal in securities except under, and in accordance with, the conditions of registration obtained from the SEBI, in accordance with the SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regulations, 1993. Regulation 7 of the said Regulations, 1993 mandates that no person shall be entitled to act as a Debenture Trustee unless he is either - (a) a Scheduled Bank carrying on commercial activity; or (b) a public financial institution within the meaning of Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956; or (c) an insurance company; or (d) body corporate.
The petitioners, who are allegedly acting as Debenture Trustees, are members of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The petitioners have no case that they are holding registration to act as Debenture Trustees.
Therefore, there is prima facie violation of Section 12(1) of SEBI Act, 1992.
Petitioners have a case that the Company being a NBFC, is regulated by, apart from the Companies Act, by RBI Act and Regulations only and is not amenable to the jurisdictional authority of SEBI and hence Ext.P2 show-cause notice is ultravires. This Court is unable to accept the said proposition. Even though the Company is an NBFC, as far as regulation of issue of Debentures and Non-current Bonds is concerned, it is the bounden duty of SEBI to protect the interest of investors in securities. As long as NBFCs are not specifically excluded from the purview of SEBI Act, 1992, the Board will have jurisdiction over securities transactions of an NBFC, including the Debenture Trustees.
Proceedings of SEBI are only at the show-cause stage. The petitioners have the opportunity to establish their case before the Board. As rightly pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the SEBI relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. Reserve Bank of India [1992 (1) TMI 337 - SUPREME COURT] the function of the court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P2 proceedings initiated by the SEBI at this stage.
-
2021 (2) TMI 598
Winding up of mutual fund scheme - Procedure and manner of winding up - Consent of the unitholders for winding up of mutual fund schemes - Rights and obligations of the trustees - objections to poll results - SEBI propounds that clause (a) of sub-regulation (2) to Regulation 39 is a standalone provision and the unitholders’ consent is not required when the trustees upon happening of an event form an opinion that the mutual fund scheme is to be wound up - SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 framed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) to hold that clause (c) to subregulation (15) of Regulation 18 mandates consent of the unitholders for winding up of mutual fund schemes even when the trustees form an opinion that the scheme is required to be wound up in terms of clause (a) to sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 39 of the Mutual Fund Regulations - Primary objection raised relates to appointment of M/s. KFin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘KFin Technologies’) for providing e-voting platform services - objection to the e-voting results emanates from the notice to the unitholders
HELD THAT:- Though we have not been provided with scheme-wise break-up of the votes which should have been given, it does not matter in view of the overwhelming consent for winding up of the schemes. The trustees also state that a large number of corporate votes were rejected by the Scrutiniser on technical grounds of absence of corporate formalities for authorisation of the concerned representatives. The rejected votes represent 1,997 unitholders holding approximately 68.10 crore units valued at ₹ 2,464 crores. Further, an overwhelming majority of the rejected votes – ₹ 2,420 crores by value, 98.6% by units and 97.5% by number of unitholders – were in favour of the scheme. Accordingly, if these rejected votes are taken into consideration, the total votes being polled in proportionate terms would increase from approximately 54% to approximately 62%.
We do not think we are required to go into the said aspect in great detail. As already held above, the unitholders were given a chance and option to vote and about 38% of the unitholders in numerical terms and 54% in value terms had exercised their right to give or reject consent to the proposal for winding up. In the absence or need for minimum quorum, which is not provided or stipulated in the Regulations nor mandated under law, the e-voting result cannot be rejected on the ground that 38% of the unitholders in numerical terms and 54% in value terms, even if we do not account for the rejected votes, had participated. This cannot be a ground to reject and ignore the affirmative result consenting to the proposal for winding up of the six mutual fund schemes.
Objection raised relates to appointment of M/s. KFin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘KFin Technologies’) for providing e-voting platform services - This argument does not impress us and cannot be a ground to reject the results. KFin Technologies, it has been pointed out, has been providing e-voting platform services to listed public limited companies ever since the Ministry of Corporate Affairs mandated them to secure approval of the resolutions by the shareholders through electronic voting. The e-voting platform of KFin Technologies is certified by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs approved certification agency, viz. STQC Website Quality Certification Services. KFin Technologies has conducted more than 4,500 e-voting events since 2013. To reject the voting results on this rather specious submission would cast doubts with serious repercussions on e-voting results of several reputed companies. The objectors are unable to point out even a single instance where KFin Technologies has been indicted. In the present case, the e-voting exercise was also supervised by a team of technical experts, including Mr. M. Krishna and Mr. Ch E. Sai Prasad, Assistant Directors, CFSL, Hyderabad.
Contention of the trustees that they were required to justify and explain the reasons for winding up of the six schemes and hence the notice was worded in this manner - The notice had also informed the investors that there would be suspension of subscription and redemption post the cut-off time from 23rd April, 2020. All Systematic Investment Plans, Systematic Transfer Plans and Systematic Withdrawal Plans into and from the abovementioned funds stood cancelled post the cut off time from 23rd April, 2020. The notice had also furnished information and clarification regarding distribution of monies from the Fund Assets, inter alia stating that following the decision to wind up the six schemes, the trustees would proceed for orderly realization and liquidation of the underlying assets with the objective of preserving value for unitholders. Their endeavour would be to liquidate the portfolio holdings at the earliest opportunity, to enable an equitable exit for all investors in the ‘unprecedented circumstances’. We do not think, in the facts of the present case, the notice for e-voting and the contents would justify annulling the consent given by the unitholders for the winding up of the six schemes.
The present case, we do not think the procedure prescribed by Regulation 41 is required to be followed as the trustees themselves have stated that the process of winding up, which would include liquidation of the securities and distribution/payment to the unitholders, should be undertaken by a third party. The objectors had also made similar submissions. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, we have appointed M/s. SBI Funds Management Private Limited to undertake the exercise of winding up, which would include liquidation of the holdings/assets/portfolio and distribution/payment to the unitholders.
We hold that for the purpose of clause (c) to Regulation 18(15), consent of the unitholders would mean consent by majority of the unitholders who have participated in the poll, and not consent of majority of all the unitholders of the scheme. In view of the findings and reasons stated above, we reject the objections to poll results and hold that the unitholders of the six schemes have given their consent by majority to windup the six schemes. Winding up and disbursements would be in terms of our directions in earlier orders dated 2nd February, 2021 and 9th February, 2021.
-
2021 (2) TMI 570
Winding up proceedings of Mutual fund scheme - objections to the e-voting results - HELD THAT:- As learned senior counsel appearing for some of the objectors, who prays for some time to place on record the new facts, which have come to their knowledge today, by way of an application. She is permitted to file an application within three days.
Response/reply thereto, if any, could be filed within three days thereafter.
List on 01.02.2021 at 2:00 p.m. - on the said date we would first examine the objections to the e-voting results and the issue/question whether or not disbursal/payment to the unit holders should be made. Interpretation of the Regulations and other aspects would be be examined and decided thereafter.
-
2021 (2) TMI 569
Winding up proceedings of Mutual fund scheme - objections to the e-voting results - HELD THAT:- E-voting results have been recorded in paragraph 36 of the said report and have been read out. The Registry would scan the report of the observer and make e-copy available to the counsel for the parties, including Advocates on Record who have filed application for intervention/impalement.
Objections, if any, to the observer’s report/e-voting/result would be filed within three days.
Response/reply of the same could be filed within three days hereinafter.
On the next date of hearing, we would decide on the objections, if any; further procedure to be followed, and whether procedure under Regulation 41(1) in the facts of the present case is mandated.
List the matters on 25.01.2021 at 2:00 p.m.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1174
Delay of 5 years or more in initiating action by the SEBI - SEBI proceedings for companies act violations - Non-payment of dividends - Show-cause notice to the Company and its Directors calling upon the noticees as to why action under Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 should not be initiated for violation of Section 205(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, complaints with regard to non-payment of dividends were registered between 2010 and 2012. Annexure-D is the screen shot of the case status. It shows that SEBI has closed the complaints between 2013 and 2014. The show-cause notice is issued in October 20, 2016. No further action is taken till issuance of communication as per Annexure-B in 2019, calling upon the petitioner to remain present during the hearing.
A perusal of the orders passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal shows that the said Tribunal has consistently held delay of five years and more in initiating action by the SEBI as unsustainable - even if petitioner is relegated to SEBI to attend the hearing as contemplated in communication Annexure-B and if petitioner were to suffer any adverse order, he can challenge the same before the Appellate Tribunal - Tribunal has decided the matter only on the point of delay without going into the merits. In this case, reckoned from the date of complaints, the delay is about four to six years in issuing the show-cause notice and seven to nine years in holding the hearing.
In this case, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to the SEBI. Hence, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 995
Levy of penalty for Non disclosures as required under the LODR Regulations - appellant had issued non-convertible debenture securities - CIRP proceedings were ongoing - penalty imposed for violating Regulations 52(4) and 54(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 ( 'LODR Regulations, 2015' - whether the impugned order imposing penalty upon the appellant for alleged contravention during the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan could be passed by the adjudicating officer? - HELD THAT:- In clear terms of the resolution plan, the show cause notice could not be issued to the appellant for the alleged contravention relating to the period prior to the acquisition and, consequently, the impugned order could not be passed against the appellant.
What could not done by SEBI when the moratorium under section 14(1) of the IBC was in force cannot certainly be done after a resolution plan is approved and becomes binding on all creditors including government and local authority under section 31 of the IBC.
We are of the opinion that once a resolution plan has been approved it becomes binding on all creditors including the government and local authorities including the respondent under section 31(1) of the IBC. It is no longer open to the respondent to issue a show cause notice or adjudicate and pass an order of penalty upon the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
............
|
9911796707
