SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 234

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
BHAVESH PABARI – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11311 OF 2013 WITH C.A. NO. 1824/2014, C.A. NO. 9798/2014, C.A. NO. 9797/2014, C.A. NO. 9799/2014, C.A. NO. 14728/2015, C.A. NO. 14730/2015, C.A. NO. 14729/2015, C.A. NO. 33/2017, C.A. NO. 1009/2017, C.A. NO. 2641/2017, C.A. NO. 6160/2018, C.A. NO. 9563/2018
Decided on : 28-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Khanna, Adv. Mr. J.D. Baruah, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR Mr. Samandra B., Adv. Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Vivya Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR, Mr. Jitendra Manilal Malkan, Adv. Ms. Dharita P. Malkan, Adv. Ms. Deepa Goraria, Adv. Ms. Khusboo V. Malkan, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Nipun Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Lal Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. (AOR) Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. N. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akhil A. Roy, Adv. Mr. Sahil Singh, Adv. M/s. K.J. John And Co, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is distinction between a continuing offence and a repeat offence.

Headnote:Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Sections 15J and 15Z – Quantum of penalty – There is distinction between a continuing offence and a repeat offence – Continuing offence is a one which is of a continuous nature as distinguished from one which is committed once and for all – In case of continuing offence, liability continues until rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with – On every occasion when disobedience or noncompliance occurs and reoccurs, there is an offence committed – Continuing offence constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion it occurs – Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 15Z of SEBI Act, cannot go into proportionality and quantum of penalty imposed, unless same is distinctly disproportionate to nature of violation which makes it offensive, tyrannous or intolerable – Penalty by very nature of provision is penal – Penalty imposed by Adjudicating Authority took into consideration mitigating factors and cannot be said to be excessively harsh or unreasonable – No good ground and reason to interfere with quantum of penalty confirmed by impugned order passed by Appellate Tribunal – Penalty imposed is just, fair and reasonable and upheld. (Paras 13, 30, 31, 35 and 51)

       Facts of Case:

       Imposition of penalty. Whether conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15J of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 are exhaustive to govern discretion in Adjudicating Officer to decide on quantum of penalty or said conditions are merely illustrative and whether power and discretion vested by Section 15J of the SEBI Act to decide on quantum of penalty, regardless of manner in which first question is answered, stands eclipsed by penalty provisions contained in Section 15A to Section 15HA of SEBI Act.

       Findings of Court:

       During course of hearing by SEBI, most details as provided by appellants were general in nature. We would observe that in case there was no violation pertaining to mobilization of funds from public under various schemes/arrangements, this could have been so stated in clear and categorical terms.

       Result : Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Two primary questions, in a way interconnected, have been referred by the Referral judgment and order dated 14th March, 2016 passed in Siddharth Chaturvedi vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2016) 12 SCC 119. The correctness of the view expressed on the said two questions by a numerical smaller bench of this Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India through its Chairman vs. Roofit Industries Limited, (2016) 12 SCC 125 would coincidentally arise. The questions referred can be enumerated and summarized as follows:

(i) Whether the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15-J of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI Act") are exhaustive to govern the discretion in the Adjudicating Officer to decide on the quantum of penalty or the said conditions are merely illustrative?

(ii) Whether the power and discretion vested by Section 15-J of the SEBI Act to decide on the quantum of penalty, regardless of the manner in which the first question is answered, stands eclipsed by the penalty provisions contained in Section 15-A to Section 15-HA of the SEBI Act?

3. The SEBI Act, as the object of its enactment would indicate, was enacted "to provide for the establishment of a Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

4. For the purposes of the present reference, we may proceed to consider the provisions contained in Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act. Sections 15-A to 15-HA are the penalty provisions whereas Section 15-I deals with the power of adjudication and Section 15-J enumerates the "factors to be taken into account by the Adjudicating Officer" while adjudging the quantum of penalty.

5. Section 15-A, illustratively, as existing prior to its amendment by Act No. 59 of 2002, as amended by Act No. 59 of 2002 and thereafter as amended by Act No. 27 of 2014 and Section 15-J are required to be specifically noticed at this stage.

Section 15A as existing prior to Amendment Act No. 59 of 2002

"15A. Penalty for failure to furnish information, return, etc. -If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder, -

(a) to furnish any document, return or report to the Board, fails to furnish the same, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one lakh and fifty thousand rupees for each such failure;

(b) to file any return or furnish any information, books or other documents within the time specified therefor in the regulations, fails to file return or furnish the same within the time specified therefor in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five thousand rupees for every day, during which such failure continues;

(c) to maintain books of account or records, fails to maintain the same, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand rupees for every day during which the failure continues."

Section 15A as amended by Act No. 59 of 2002

"15A. Penalty for failure to furnish information, return, etc. -If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder, -

(a) to furnish any document, return or report to the Board, fails to furnish the same, he shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less;

(b) to file any return or furnish any information, books or other documents within the time specified therefor in the regulations, fails to file return or furnish the same within the time specified therefor in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less;

(c) to maintain books of account or records, fails to maintain the same, he shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such fail


















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top