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
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
Securities and Exchange Board of India through its Chairman vs. Roofit Industries Limited
Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Kishore R. Ajmera
Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Rakhi Trading (P) Ltd
Siddharth Chaturvedi vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.