Ifci Limited vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 82 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An adjudicating officer's order imposing penalty must consider a substantive plea raised by the noticee; where a material plea (that shares acquired by invoking a pledge were subsequently sold, so that the shareholding never exceeded the regulatory thresholds) has been inadvertently left unconsidered, the order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating officer for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 25.04.2018
Appeal No. 82 of 2018
IFCI Limited IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110 019. ...Appellant
Versus [[
Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Mr. Digajmaan G. Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Mangesh Bhonde, Mr. Yashmaan Mishra and Ms. Shruti Sawant, Advocates i/b Hammurabi and Solomon for the Appellant.
Mr. Aditya Mehta, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Ms. Vidhi Jhawar and Mr. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
1.
This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Adjudicating
Officer ('AO' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI'
for short) on December 22, 2017. By that order penalty of Rs. 14 Lakh is
imposed on the appellant under Section 15A(b) of Securities and Exchange
Board of India Act, 1992 for violating provisions contained in the SEBI
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 2
('SAST Regulations' for short) and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading
Regulations, 1992 ('PIT Regulations' for short).
2. Learned Counsel for SEBI fairly stated that the appellant had raised a
plea before the AO that the shares acquired by invoking the pledge were
sold from time to time, as a result, the shareholding of the appellant did not
exceed the limits prescribed under the SAST Regulations and PIT
Regulations, however, that plea has been inadvertently not considered in the
impugned order.
3. Since the basic plea raised by the appellant has not been considered
in the impugned order, we quash and set aside the impugned order and
restore the matter to the file of the AO of SEBI for fresh decision on merit in
accordance with law.
4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 25.04.2018 Prepared and compared by: msb
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free