Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal23 April 2021Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party seeking to challenge an ex parte ad-interim order passed by the Whole Time Member, who has been given an opportunity to apply for its revocation or modification, must actually take that step before the WTM; where the party files no reply and only seeks adjournments without applying for revocation, the confirmatory order cannot be faulted on appeal, since the facts underlying it are undisputed. The pendency of a show cause notice issued by the WTM does not preclude the appellant from contesting it and giving an appropriate reply before the WTM, nor from applying for modification of the ex parte ad-interim order as confirmed, should circumstances so require; such applications are for the WTM to deal with in the first instance.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision:23.4.2021

Misc. Application No.204 of 2021 And Appeal No.193 of 2021

Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. Karvy House, 46, Avenue IV, Street No.1, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034. ...Appellant

Versus

The Whole Time Member Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, 'G' Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ...Respondent

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Mr. Harish Khedkar, Mr. K.C. Jacob and Ms. Dhwani Shah, Advocates i/b. Vis Legis Law Practice for the Appellant.

Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

1.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay

in the filing of the appeal is condoned. The misc.

application is allowed.

2. The appellant is a stock broker and pursuant to an

inspection conducted by National Stock Exchange of

India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'NSE') a

preliminary report was submitted on 22nd November,

2019 in which it was prima facie found that the

appellant in its capacity as a stock broker had misused

its clients' securities in an unauthorised manner in

violation of Regulation 9 of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers & Sub

Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as

'Stock Brokers Regulations). Based on this

preliminary report, the Whole Time Member ('WTM'

for short) passed an ex-parte ad-interim order dated

22nd November, 2019 issuing the following directions.

"21. Under the above circumstances, I, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B read with Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 35 of 3

SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008, by way of this ex parte ad interim order, pending forensic audit, hereby issue the following directions:

(i) KSBL is prohibited from taking new clients in respect of its stock broking activities;

(ii) The Depositories i.e. NSDL and CDSL, in order to prevent further misuse of clients' securities by KSBL, are hereby directed not to act upon any instruction given by KSBL in pursuance of power of attorney given to KSBL by its clients, with immediate effect;

(iii)The Depositories shall monitor the movement of securities into and from the DP account of clients of KSBL as DP to ensure that clients' operations are not affected;

(iv) The Depositories shall not allow transfer of securities from DP account no.11458979, named KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD (BSE) with immediate effect. The transfer of securities from DP account no. 11458979, named KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD (BSE) shall be permitted only to the respective beneficial owner who has paid in full against these securities, under supervision of NSE; and

(v) The Depositories and Stock Exchanges shall initiate appropriate disciplinary regulatory proceedings against the Noticee for misuse of clients' funds and 4

securities as per their respective bye laws, rules and regulations;......."

3. Against this ex-parte ad-interim order dated 22nd

November, 2019, the appellant preferred an appeal

before this Tribunal wherein they prayed that direction

no.2 needs clarification and for this purpose they had

written two letters to Securities and Exchange Board of

India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') seeking

clarification and since clarification was not

forthcoming an appeal was filed before this Tribunal.

4. This Tribunal by an order dated 29th November,

2019 disposed of the appeal directing the WTM to pass

appropriate orders on the letters written by the

appellant seeking clarification of its orders.

5. Based on the aforesaid, the WTM considered the

request of the appellant and passed an order dated 29th

November, 2019 clarifying that it would not be prudent

to allow the appellant to use the power of attorney

given by its clients.

5

6. Against this order of 29th November, 2019 passed

by the WTM, the appellant filed appeal no.65 of 2020

before this Tribunal which was dismissed as not

pressed by an order of the Tribunal dated 11th

February, 2020 on the ground that the appellant would

raise all the grounds before the WTM.

7. The WTM gave opportunity to the appellant to

contest the ex-parte ad-interim order and apply for

revocation and after giving several opportunities the

WTM passed the impugned order dated 24th

November, 2020 confirming the interim order by

issuing the following directions:-

"30. In view of the above, I deem it fit to proceed further in the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B read with Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 35 of SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008, hereby confirm the directions issued vide ex parte ad interim order dated November 22, 2019.

31. Transfer of funds/securities made by the KSBL to its clients subsequent to SEBI order dated November 22, 2019, would not absolve KSBL or its directors from violations of the provisions of the securities laws, as have been 6

found in the forensic audit report received in the matter. It is clarified that confirmation of the directions issued in the ex parte order by the present order shall not in any way come in the way of transfer of the funds/securities, to be made by the KSBL to its clients. KSBL shall not alienate any of its assets, except with the prior permission of NSE till the settlement of claims of the investors or under direction or order by any Court or Tribunal."

8. The appellant being aggrieved by the confirmatory

order has filed the present appeal.

9. We have heard Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior

Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Mr. Harish

Khedkar, Mr. K.C. Jacob and Ms. Dhwani Shah,

Advocates for the Appellant and Mr. Rafique Dada,

Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and

Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocates for the

Respondent .

10. We find from a perusal of para nos. 28 and 29 of

the impugned order that no steps whatsoever was taken

by the appellant to apply for revocation of the ex-parte

ad-interim order dated 22nd November, 2019 and only

prayed before the WTM about various steps that they 7

are taking to settle the claim of the clients. We find

from a perusal of para nos.28 and 29 that the appellant

failed to file any reply and only sought adjournment on

the ground that they are making efforts to arrange

funds in order to settle the claim of its clients or took

adjournment on account of Covid pandemic or heavy

rains in Telangana or sickness of its Chairman or

alleged buyer.

11. The aforesaid facts narrated in para nos.28 and 29

are not disputed and, consequently, we do not find any

reason to interfere with the impugned orders. We

further find that the WTM has now issued a show

cause notice dated 29th January, 2021 and,

consequently, we are of the opinion that it is open to

the appellant to contest the show cause notice and give

an appropriate reply before the WTM. It would also be

open to the appellant to apply for modification of the

ex-parte ad-interim order as confirmed by the

confirmatory order, if the need so arises which will be

dealt with appropriately by the WTM. 8

12. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any

merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no

order as to costs.

13. The present matter was heard through video

conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it

is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a

certified copy of this order could be issued by the

registry. In these circumstances, this order will be

digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of

the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act

on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will

act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax

and/or email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member

23.4.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed

KSHMI RAJALAKSHMI NAIR H

RHN Date: 2021.04.29 H NAIR 07:12:28 +05'30'

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