Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + AT SEBI - 2022 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (7) TMI 1478 - AT - SEBI


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors.
2. Legitimacy of the GDR issue and the subscription by Vintage FZE.
3. Disclosure obligations under SEBI regulations and the Listing Agreement.
4. Fraudulent scheme allegations.
5. Proportionality of penalties imposed by SEBI.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Resolution Passed by the Board of Directors:
The resolution dated 31st March 2008, passed by the Board of Directors of Sybly Industries Ltd., authorized the opening of a bank account with EURAM Bank for receiving subscription money for the GDR issue. It also authorized the Managing Director and a Director to sign necessary documents and use the funds as security for loans. The resolution was foundational for subsequent actions, including the issuance of 1.5 million GDRs worth USD 6.99 million.

2. Legitimacy of the GDR Issue and the Subscription by Vintage FZE:
The GDRs were issued on 9th June 2008 and subscribed entirely by Vintage FZE. SEBI's investigation revealed that the proceeds were used as security for a loan from EURAM Bank to Vintage, which then used the loan to subscribe to the GDRs. This arrangement was not disclosed to the stock exchange or investors, raising questions about the legitimacy of the subscription process.

3. Disclosure Obligations under SEBI Regulations and the Listing Agreement:
The company failed to disclose the pledge agreement and the loan agreement to the stock exchange, violating Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement and Section 21 of the SCRA Act. The non-disclosure misled investors about the true nature of the GDR subscription and the financial arrangements behind it. The company's announcement that the GDR issue was fully subscribed was found to be misleading as it did not reveal that only one entity, Vintage, was the subscriber.

4. Fraudulent Scheme Allegations:
The WTM and AO concluded that the use of GDR proceeds to fund the subscriber was a fraudulent scheme, violating Section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. The appellants argued they were unaware of the pledge and loan agreements, attributing the actions to the Lead Manager. However, the tribunal found that the appellants were aware of and had signed the agreements knowingly, thus participating in the fraudulent scheme.

5. Proportionality of Penalties Imposed by SEBI:
The tribunal considered the penalties imposed by SEBI excessive and discriminatory compared to similar cases. The company and its directors were debarred for five years, and penalties ranged from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 10.30 crores. The tribunal noted that other companies with similar violations received lesser penalties and shorter debarment periods. It emphasized the doctrine of proportionality, which requires penalties to be commensurate with the offense and not arbitrary or excessive.

Conclusion:
The tribunal affirmed the violations committed by the company but reduced the penalties and debarment periods. The debarment period for the company and its directors was reduced to the period already undergone. The penalty against the company was reduced to Rs. 25 lakhs, and the penalties against the Managing Director and Director were reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs each. The penalties against the Independent Directors were quashed, as their involvement was limited to being signatories to the board resolution without evidence of participation in the fraudulent scheme. The appeals were partly allowed, and the tribunal emphasized the need for proportionality in punitive measures.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates