Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Securities and Exchange Board of India – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Shah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) This is an Appeal preferred by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) allowing the Compounding Application and discharging the Respondent of the offence punishable under Section 24 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act). The Special Court has allowed the application preferred by the Respondent for compounding of offences and has permitted compounding by directing Respondent No.1 to pay penalty of Rs.54,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of adjudication of order in addition to payment of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards legal charge. Appellant-SEBI is aggrieved by orders dated 4 March 2024 and 4 April 2024 to the limited extent of the Special Court reducing the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to 6% p.a. and this is the limited remit of enquiry in the present Appeal.
2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, Respondent No.1-Mahendra A. Shah was the promoter of Ransi Software India Ltd (RSL). It is alleged that in his capacity as the promoter of RSL, Respondent No.1 was involved in manipulation in issuing preferential shares, on consideration other than cash, to some entities by overvaluing
The court affirmed that the Special Judge has discretion in compounding offence penalties under the SEBI Act, and can determine interest rates independently of SEBI's recommendations.
(1) Power of compounding must be expressly conferred by Statute which creates offence. (2) Section 147 of N.I. Act does not expressly incorporate permission of Court for compounding, conceivably beca....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that SEBI's consent is necessary for compounding the offense under Section 24A of the SEBI Act, and the court must obtain the views of SEBI for gui....
A court may compel the SEBI to disclose documents relevant to compounding applications, reinforcing that while SEBI’s views are influential, they do not override judicial discretion in deciding these....
Statutory interest at 12% per annum on unpaid penalties arises from the expiry of the compliance period, reflecting SEBI's authority in recovery due under the Act.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – Compounding of offence – Section 482, Cr.P.C. and Section 147, N.I. Act, are different and distinct – Offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded under Section 1....
The compounding of offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act requires the consent of the complainant, and the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be used to circumvent this requirement.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
