Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Chairman And Managing Director Central ... vs Central Bank Of India Sc/St Employees ... on 8 January, 2016
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that error
apparent on the face of record committed by the Adjudicating
Officer in the impugned order can very well be rectified by
this Tribunal. The learned counsel relied on the ratio of
Nagendra Nath Bora and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner of Hills
4
Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors. [AIR1958 SC 398] and
Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India and
Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare
Association and Ors. [AIR 2016 SC 326]. These cases
however are on the scope of powers of the court under Article
226, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the
scope of review. In fact in the present appeal against the order
of the Adjudicating officer the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is
wider, as this Tribunal has to examine the correctness of the
finding of facts also.
Dlf Limited vs Sebi on 13 March, 2015
c. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as
per Regulation 64 of the ICDR Regulations the lead
Merchant Banker is required to exercise due diligence
17
and satisfy itself about all the aspects of the issue
including the veracity and adequacy of the disclosure in
RHP. In fact the Appellant no.1 had produced all
documents in this regard to the Merchant Banker and,
therefore, the appellant cannot be faulted with for the
negligence of the lead Merchant Banker.
d. In our view the appellant cannot escape the
responsibility by blaming the lead Merchant Banker in
this regard. The findings of the Adjudicating Officer
for these reasons are required to be confirmed.
e. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the
observation of this Tribunal made in the judgement
dated 15th March, 2015 in Appeal no.331 of 2014 in the
case of DLF Limited vs. SEBI. In the said case at
paragraph no.48 this Tribunal has interalia observed
that the primary responsibility of making true and
adequate disclosure lie on the statutory auditor or
merchant bankers. In paragraph no.49 it was observed
that the merchant banker has to ensure the truthfulness
and adequacy of the disclosure contained in the offer
document.
Corporate Strategic Allianz Limited vs Sebi on 1 February, 2018
d. The leaned counsel for the appellant submits that
the delay which occurred in finalization of the RHP by
respondent SEBI required the appellant to raise the loan
21
within its power. The loan was obtained from market
where no formal agreement was required. The learned
counsel therefore submitted that the conclusions of the
Adjudicating Officer in this regard are wrong.
e. The learned counsel for the respondent placed
reliance on the observation of this Tribunal in Appeal
no.224 of 2017 in Corporate Strategic Allianz Ltd. vs.
SEBI dated 29.3.2019. In that case after taking into
consideration the scheme of regulations this Tribunal
has found that non disclosure of details of bridge loan or
other financial arrangement are specifically required to
be indicated in the prospectus etc.
Upon hearing both the sides we are of the opinion
that the appellant is missing the point. The issue is not
as to whether the Board of Directors were empowered
to raise the money but as to whether they should have
disclosed this event in RHP and prospectus. The events
had taken place prior to the RHP and the prospectus and
before the listing date.Therefore, the appellants could
have very well disclosed these facts in RHP, in the
prospectus and by issuing a public notice thereby giving
information to the investor public about this material
22
fact. The conclusion of the Adjudicating Officer in this
regard therefore needs no interference.
Adjudicating Officer Securities And ... vs Bhavesh Pabari on 28 February, 2019
The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the
case of Adjudicating Officer, SEBI vs. Bhavesh Pabari
decided by the Supreme Court of India on 28th
41
February, 2019, submits that when the Adjudicating
Officer was not able to find any unfair advantage, the
maximum penalty under Section 15HB of Rs.1 crore
and Rs.5 crores under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act is
uncalled for. The learned counsel therefore submits that
the appeal be allowed or alternatively the penalty be
modified. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent opposed the plea. He submitted that the
documents on record and even explanations to the
charge given by the appellants would show that the
investor public was misled by suppressing the material
facts or transactions which occurred prior to RHP, post
RHP and before issue of shares. Not only this, the IPO
proceeds were misused for entering into manipulative
trades. Some of the substantive amount was diverted by
making payment to a firm at Kolkata for purchasing
office which was not even dealing in non-residential
premises. There were diversion of funds to the relatives
of the Appellant no.2 to 4 and different explanations
were given at different point of time on this count
contradictory to each other. He therefore submitted that
the appeal be dismissed in toto.
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that error
apparent on the face of record committed by the Adjudicating
Officer in the impugned order can very well be rectified by
this Tribunal. The learned counsel relied on the ratio of
Nagendra Nath Bora and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner of Hills
4
Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors. [AIR1958 SC 398] and
Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India and
Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare
Association and Ors. [AIR 2016 SC 326]. These cases
however are on the scope of powers of the court under Article
226, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the
scope of review. In fact in the present appeal against the order
of the Adjudicating officer the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is
wider, as this Tribunal has to examine the correctness of the
finding of facts also.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15HA in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 15HB in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1