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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN, J.
BRD Securities Ltd., Represented By Its Director, Mr. William Verghese Chungath Cheru – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance and Anr. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 32861 Of 2022
Decided On : 25-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: E.K. Nandakumar (Sr.), M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Pranoy Harilal.
For the Respondents: Sri. S. Vaidyanathan, K.M. Jamaludheen, Latha Prabhakaran, Raju Joseph (Sr.), Other Present : DSGI S. Manu.

Point of Law: Section 19 of SEBI Act shows that, all powers and functions of Board can be delegated to any member, officer or any other person.

Headnote:

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Section 3(1), 11A, (1), (4A), B(1), B(2), B, 19, 29 - Companies Act, 1956 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 81 - Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1996 - Section 66 - Business of asset financing - Violation of provisions - hearing was adjourned - By Ext.P9 letter it was informed that hearing before Chief General Manager was adjourned - Petition was filed at that stage – In Indian context, delegation of quasi-judicial functions is permissible if statute provides for such delegation - Para 15.

Finding of the Court: Delegation of quasi-judicial power to whole-time member having thus been approved, challenge against delegation of powers to Chief General Manager/ Executive Director brought in by way of amendment cannot also be interfered with - Conspectus of decisions cited indicates that wide power to delegate statutory and administrative functions gets restricted when it comes to quasi-judicial functions and is almost non-existent in case of judicial functions - Challenge against Ext.P10 delegation order, to extent it permits delegation of quasi-judicial functions to an employee/officer of second respondent, and consequential challenge against Ext.P9 communication, is rejected.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is an unlisted public limited company registered with the Reserve Bank of India as a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and carrying on the business of asset financing. The second respondent is the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) constituted under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with the objective of protecting the interest of investors in securities and regulating the securities market.

2. On 18.03.2020, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 show cause notice issued by the second respondent alleging violation of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008 and SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, in the issuance of debentures and bonds during the period 2003 to 2017. Refuting the allegations and asserting that it has not contravened any statutory provision, regulations or guidelines, the petitioner submitted Exts.P4 and P5 replies and requested for a personal hearing. By Ext.P6 letter, the petitioner was informed that personal hearing would be held before the Whole Time Member of the Board. However, the hearing scheduled on 22.02.2022 was adjourned. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 letter, the petitioner was informed that the personal hearing would be held before the Chief General Manager on 03.10.2022. However, by Ext.P9 letter it was informed that the hearing before the Chief General Manager was adjourned to 18.10.2022. The writ petition was filed at that stage.

3. Senior Advocate E.K.Nandakumar appearing for the petitioner contended that, the proposed proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature conducted only by the SEBI Board established as per Section 3(1) of the SEBI Act. The functions of the Board, enumerated in Section 11, cannot be delegated to an officer of the Board. Likewise, as per Section 11A, only the Board is empowered to regulate or prohibit issue of prospectus, offer document or advertisement soliciting money for issue of securities. Again, under Section 11B, the Board alone is vested with the authority to issue directions in the interest of investors, the orderly development of the securities market etc and levy penalties. Although Section 19 of the SEBI Act provides for delegation of the Board's powers and functions (except the powers under Section 29) to any member, officer of the Board or any other person, the provision does not envisage delegation of quasi-judicial functions of the Board. The SEBI (Delegation of Statutory and Financial Powers) Order, 2019, issued in purported exercise of power under Section 19, providing for delegation of Board's function, including those under Sections 11(1), 11(4A), 11B(1), 11B(2), 11B of the SEBI Act or any regulations framed by SEBI to the Chief General Manager, is ultra vires the SEBI Act, to the extent, the quasi-judicial functions of the Board is delegated. It is argued that, wherever delegation of powers is intended and permissible, the SEBI Act specifically provides for such delegation as in Section 11C, dealing with appointment of Investigating Authority and Section 15I providing for appointment of Adjudicating Officer. This is for the reason that the Board is best suited to exercise quasi-judicial functions as the members are persons with expertise and knowledge, either appointed or nominated by the Central Government or nominated by the Reserve Bank.

4. To drive home the contention that quasi-judicial functions cannot be delegated, learned Senior Counsel drew attention to the meaning of ‘permissible delegation’ in 4th Edition (Volume 1) of Halsubury's Laws of England, extracted below;

    “750. Permissible delegation. An authority to delegate will in some cases be implied, generally on the ground that there is no personal confidence reposed or skill required, and that the duties are capable of being equally well discharged by any person.”

Reference was made to the 10th Edition of Wade’s Administrative Law, to point out that the statutory power

            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 telegram-icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top