IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Hima Kohli, B. Vijaysen Reddy, JJ.
Animish Pradip Raje - Petitioner
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai, and another – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7972 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226(2) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 20(c) - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 142 (2-A) - Companies Act, 2013 - Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 - Shareholders/investors - Forensic Auditor – Appointment - Violation of principles of natural justice - Petition has been filed challenging order passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), appointing Grant Thornton Bharat LLP as a Forensic Auditor in respect of financial statements of respondent No.2/company for Financial Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on ground of conflict of interest and violation of principles of natural justice - Whether GTB, tasked with the role of a financial auditor, should be above suspicion, like Caesar’s wife – Held, Court find merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that what is involved in the present case is not the interest of the petitioner alone. The interest of all the minority shareholders/investors is involved and the issue of lack of confidence in GTB for undertaking the financial audit of the respondent No.2/company ought to be examined from the above perspective – Court unable to sustain the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.1/SEBI insofar as it has upheld the decision taken on 07.10.2020, of appointing GTB as a forensic auditor in respect of the financial affairs of the respondent No.2/company which is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1/SEBI is directed to appoint any other auditor from its panel for conducting the forensic audit of the respondent No.2/company, as per the terms of reference drawn by it. We may note here that the financial audit was stayed vide order dated 22.04.2021. At that stage, GTB was in the process of calling for documents from the respondent No.2/company. Steps had yet to be taken to examine the said documents, which are stated to be fairly voluminous in nature. Therefore, no undue hardship or delay is likely to be caused if any other auditor is appointed by the respondent No.1/SEBI to audit the accounts of the respondent No.2/company, for the audit assignment - Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.1/Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), appointing Grant Thornton Bharat LLP (for short, ‘GTB’) as a Forensic Auditor in respect of the financial statements of the respondent No.2/company for the Financial Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on the ground of conflict of interest and violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows:-
(b) Respondent No.2 is a Public Limited Company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the National Stock Exchange (NSE) having a paid-up share capital of Rs.97,67,61,310 (Rupees ninety seven crores sixty seven lakh sixty one thousand three hundred and ten only). The respondent No.2/company was engaged in the business of procurement of milk, manufacturing of milk products and distribution of the same and cattle feed. After sale of its dairy business, the respondent No.2/company is in the business of cattle feed and nutrition.
(c) The Board of Directors of the respondent No.2/company decided to sell the shareholding of the company in its subsidiary company, namely Sunfresh Agro Industries Private Limited (SAIPL), to Tirumala Milk Products Private Limited (TMPPL), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of French Dairy Multinational Groupe Lactalis. A public disclosure dated 21.01.2019 was issued by the respondent No.2/company for conducting the said sale and its shareholding to its sister concern.
(d) The respondent No.2/company entered into a Share Price Agreement dated 21.01.2019 for the sale of the entire share capital of SAIPL to TMPPL for a sale consideration of Rs.1,227 crores approximately. It also approved the sale and transfer of its dairy product business to SAIPL, after completion of the transfer of the shares of SAIPL to TMPPL, in terms of the Business Transfer Agreement dated 21.01.2019, for a total consideration of Rs.473 crores approximately.
(e) On 25.03.2019, the respondent No.2/company made a further public disclosure to the BSE and NSE informing them about setting up of an escrow account to hold the proceeds of the aforesaid sale and constitution of a five member ‘Transaction Committee’ comprising three independent Directors and not more than two other Directors in order to oversee, supervise and manage utilisation of the net proceeds from the aforesaid sale transaction in the escrow account held in trust for the shareholders. The said Transaction Committee was to deliberate upon and evaluate various options available for the distribution of the proceeds of the sale transactions to the shareholders. Mr. Anoop Krishna, an independent Director, appointed in the company on 30.07.2018 was one of the members of the aforesaid Transaction Committee constituted by the respondent No.2/company.
(f) The respondent No.2/company held an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of its shareholders for approval of the aforesaid sale transactions whereby it informed the shareholders that from out of Rs.1700 crores that was likely to be received as proceeds of the sale transaction, Rs.1000-1200 crores (approx) may be available for distribution to them. Around 92% of the shareholders of the respondent No.2/company were present and voted in favour of the resolution of the sale transaction. On 11.04.2019, the respondent No.2/company announced that the sale transactions had culminated and executed. This was informed to the Stock Exchanges on 11.04.2019.
(g) On 04.09.2019, the promoters of the respondent No.2/company, namely Mr. Sarangdhar Ramchandra Nirmal and Mr. Vivek Sarangdhar Nirmal (cumulatively holding around 50.10% of the total shareholding of the company), addressed letters to the respondent No.2/company expressing their intention to
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim
Ambika Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao
ITO v. Madnani Engg. Works Ltd
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
Management of M/s. M.S.Nally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. State of Bihar
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
National Textile Corporation Ltd. V. Haribox Swalram
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra
Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India
Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India
Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax
State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India
Union of India v. Adani Exports Limited
Writ jurisdiction is maintainable against stock exchanges; principles of natural justice must be observed in disciplinary procedures, and Board decisions can be void due to improper constitution.
The availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the filing of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in cases involving a violation of the principle of natural j....
Show-cause notices under SEBI Act for insider trading quashed if issued by incompetent authority below Division Chief rank, containing pre-determined conclusions, and for violating natural justice by....
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.