SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.
Videocon International Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Securities & Exchange
Board of India — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2005
Decided on : 13-01-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of section 15Z of SEBI Act, while changing forum of second appeal from High Court to Supreme Court, taking away right of appeal against finding of fact and allowing only appeal against finding of law is substantive and not merely procedural. Hence cannot be retrospective. Therefore appeals filed before the High Court prior to amendment are maintainable.

Headnote:(a) Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002 – Section 32 – Amendment of section 15Z – Repeal and Savings – Provision silent on prospectivity or retrospectivity of amended provision. (Para 24)

        (b) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 15Z – Under unamended provision High Court as second appellate Court was competent to decide questions of fact as well as law – Amended provision making the Supreme Court as second Appellate Court but competent only to decide questions of law – Right to appeal before and after amendment available in different packages – Amended provision varying scope of second appeal – Right to appeal against a finding of fact no more available after amendment – Not merely an amendment of forum. (Para 25, 28)

        (c) Administration of Justice – Right to appeal – Package at initial stage of lis or dispute constitutes vested substantive right – Can be taken away only when amended provision expressly or by necessary intendment so provides – In absence thereof substantive right prevails over law prevailing at the time of passing of order because legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal, are steps in a singular proceeding. (Para 26)

        (d) Administration of Justice – Right to appeal – Appellate packages expressed differently pre- and post- amendment – Effect of amendment – Either decreases the package or increases it – In case of decrease right to appeal stands reduced or curtailed – Package available at pre-amendment stage no more available – In case of increase earlier package stands included in amended package and hence available. (Para 27)

        (e) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 15Z – Amendment of section 15Z taking away substantive right of respondent available to them at commencement of lis – Appellate remedy available to respondent prior to the amendment continues to be available despite the amendment – All appeals preferred by the Board, before the High Court held maintainable – Date of filing of the second appeal, or hearing thereof not relevant. (Para 29, 30)

        1905 AC 369; AIR 1953 SC 221; AIR 1957 SC 540; (1976) 2 SCC 917; (2001) 8 SCC 24; AIR 1966 SC 1423; (1994) 5 SCC 593; (2011) 6 SCC 739; AIR 1953 SC 221; AIR 1956 SC 29 – Referred

        (f) Administration of Justice – Amendment – Change of forum – Would not generally affect pending actions unless there is intention to the contrary – Instantly section 32 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002 not showing any such intention – Pending appeals would not be affected by amendment – Amendment being substantive would not be retrospective and hence will not affect pending actions in terms of Section 6(c) and (e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. (Para 31)

        (2001) 8 SCC 397 – Relied upon

        (g) Administration of Justice – Amendment – Change of Forum – Substantive or procedural – Where appellate remedy already availed amendment would not have effect being substantive – If amendment comes into force before availing remedy under unamended provision it will have effect, being procedural. (Para 32)

        1994 Supp.(1) SCC 257 – Relied upon

        (1994) 4 SCC 602; (1979) 1 SCC 92; (1994) 4 SCC 602 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

        Section 15Z of SEBI Act provided for second appellate remedy. High Court was made the second appellate court and was empowered to decided questions of fact as well as law. The section was amended in 2002 wef 29.10.2002. The Supreme Court was made second appellate Court and was required to decide only questions of law.

        The High Court held that such of the appeals as had been filed before the coming into force of the amended Section 15Z, would not be affected by the amendment, and the High Court had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the same. The High Court also held that such of the appeals as had been filed after the coming into force of the amended Section 15Z, would not be maintainable before it.

        The question arising in the present appeal is whether an order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal before 29.10.2002 would be appealable under the unamended provision of Section 15Z of the SEBI Act before the High Court, or alternatively, whether the same would be appealable under the amended provision of Section 15Z of the SEBI Act before the Supreme Court. And also, whether the date on which the Board had preferred the appeals, was a relevant consideration.

       Finding of the Court:

        Appeals were maintainable before High Court.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.