Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.28 seconds)Section 12A in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 23E in The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 15HA in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Reliance Airports Developers P. Ltd. vs Airports Authority Of India And Ors. on 21 April, 2006
"29. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of
the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness because an
action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve
negation of equality. This doctrine of arbitrariness is not
restricted only to executive actions, but also applies to
legislature. Thus, a party has to satisfy that the action
was reasonable, not done in unreasonable manner or
capriciously or at pleasure without adequate
determining principle, rational, and has been done
according to reason or judgment, and certainly does not
depend on the will alone. However, the action of
legislature, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,
should ordinarily be manifestly arbitrary. There must be
a case of substantive unreasonableness in the statute
itself for declaring the act ultra vires of Article 14 of the
Constitution. (Vide: Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi, Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v.
Airports Authority of India, Bidhannagar (Salt Lake)
Welfare Assn. v. Central Valuation Board, Grand
Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees and
Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Limited, and State
of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder.)"
Suzlon Energy Limited & Anr. vs Sebi on 3 May, 2021
In Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. SEBI, appeal no.201 of 2018
decided on 3rd May, 2021, this Tribunal held:
Sybly Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs Sebi on 14 July, 2022
In Sybly Industries Ltd. v. SEBI,
appeal no.381 of 219 and other connected appeals decided
on 14th July, 2022 penalties ranging from Rs.10 lakhs to
Rs.10.30 crores were imposed which were reduced to Rs.25
lakhs on the Company and Rs.10 lakhs on the Managing
Director. Thus, in our opinion, the penalty imposed is
excessive and disproportionate to the violation and is also
discriminatory.
Prafull Anubhai Shah vs Sebi on 18 June, 2021
In a large
number of cases, namely, Appeal no. 389 of 2021, Prafull
Anubhai Shah vs SEBI decided on June 28, 2021, Appeal no.
433 of 2021, Rajesh Shah vs SEBI decided on July 5, 2021,
Appeal no. 58 of 2021, Jaiprakash Kabra vs SEBI decided on
September 2, 2021 and Appeal no. 406 of 2020, Mr. Gurmeet
Singh vs SEBI decided on September 20, 2021 we have held
that independent directors cannot be penalized when they are
not part of day to day affairs of the Company. Consequently,
the penalty imposed against Mr. Shanti Lal Badera of Rs. 10
lakh is set aside. The appellant Mr. Rishabh Kumar Jain was
23
the Company Secretary in the Company. He has been
penalized a sum of Rs. 2 lakh only on the ground that he was
signatory to the resolution and that he did not act diligently.
In our opinion being the Company Secretary he was required
to sign and verify the resolution but was not involved in the
process of issuance of GDR issue nor was he involved in the
process of issuance of the loan agreement or the pledge
agreement. Thus, the question of him not acting diligently
does not arise when he has required to sign on the dotted line
as per the dictate of the management and as per the
regulations of SEBI. In our opinion, it does not amount to
lack of due diligence. In the instant case, we are of the
opinion that no penalty could have been imposed upon the
appellant Mr. Rishabh Kumar Jain. Consequently, penalty is
set aside.
Nirma Industries Ltd. & Anr vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India on 9 May, 2013
17. We also held that Company and its MDs were aware of
the pledge agreement, non-disclosure of the pledge agreement
and loan agreement invited penalty. Further, the corporate
announcement did not disclose the fact that the subsisting
pledge agreement facilitated the subscribers to subscribe to
the GDR issue. The corporate announcement was misleading
and presented a distorted version to the investors and created
a false version inducing the investors to deal in securities.
The aforesaid findings have been given in a large number of
matters decided by this Tribunal especially in Appeal no. 381
of 2019, Sibly Industries Ltd. vs SEBI and other companion
appeals decided on July 14, 2022, Appeal no. 438 of 2020,
Aksh Optifibre Ltd. vs SEBI and other companion appeals
decided on June 27, 2022 and Appeal no. 28 of 2022,
Praveen Kumar Hastimal Shah vs SEBI and other
companion appeals decided on July 6, 2022.