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

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 243

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Ravi, (Senior Advocate), For Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor.
For the Respondent:Mr. Datar Aravind, (Senior Advocate) For Mr. S. Dwarakanath, Mr. Nanduri Siram, Ms. Rishika Harish

Headnote:

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:-

    (a) The writ petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and a minority shareholder of the respondent No.2/company, holding 790 equity shares in D-MAT form, vide DP ID IN301151.

(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

                              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 Back to top