The authority issuing show-cause notices under the SEBI Act must be of appropriate rank as specified by the Act; failure to adhere to this renders the notice void.

ORDER :

1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the notice dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy General Manager (for short 'DGM') as incompetent authority has issued impugned notice and accordingly, sought for quashing the same.

2. Since, the question of law involved in these writ petitions are common, and facts are similar in nature and further the grounds as urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are more or less identical in nature and therefore, the writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

FACTS IN W.P.NO.3525 OF 2022:

3. In W.P.No.3525 of 2022, the petitioner is Noticee No.8, challenging the impugned notice dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure-A).

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was an Independent Director and Non- Executive Chairman of the Board of LVB, from April, 2013 to April, 2015. It is also stated that, the respondent No.2 has issued impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the details to the questionnaire which related to trading, and details of petitioners' association with various entities as well as with LVB. The petitioner has answered to the questionnaire, however, the respondent No.2 has sought for personal appearance of the petitioner for Inquiry as to take evidence. The petitioner requested his personal appearance in the local office of the respondent-authority as per Annexure-B, however, the respondent No.2, did not accept the request made by the petitioner and on the other hand, the respondent No.2 issued impugned notice, alleging that, the petitioner is in possession of UPSI, as traded in the scripts of LVB, during the month of February, March and June of 2018. It is also alleged against the petitioner that, the mode of sharing of UPSI, is presumed on the basis that, the petitioner shares the minutes of meeting of the Board with one connected person.

5. It is further stated that, the UPSI relates to capital rising for LVB and the three connected persons have disputed their possession of UPSI and the adjudication is still pending against them. It is also stated that, the respondent No.2, erroneously come to the conclusion that, the connected persons had access to UPSI, and therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that, allegation has been made against the petitioner is devoid of merit and unsustainable in law. The petitioner has sought for certain documents as per Annexure-C, however, the respondent No.2, replied vide e-mail dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure-D). It is further stated that, since the petitioner was a covid survivor and as such, requested the respondent No.2 to allow his advocate to inspect the documents and same was denied to the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner sought for cross-examination of officials of LVB and JP Morgan India Pvt Ltd., as well as seeks investigation report referred to in the impugned notice, as per Annexure-F and G. It is the case of the petitioner that, during January 2018, LVB, intend to rise the capital and same is reflected in the Press Release dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-H). It is also stated that, impugned notice is without jurisdiction and accordingly, sought for setting aside the impugned notice.

FACTS IN W.P.NO.3519 OF 2022:

6. In W.P.No.3519 of 2022, the petitioner is Noticee No.3, assailing the impugned notice dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

7. Facts of the case are that