Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Miscellaneous Order on the representations from Ms.Purnima Sheth in respect of ex-parte ad-interim order passed in the matter of Tara Jewels Limited

Securities And Exchange Board Of India23 October 2020

Interim / procedural order — not a final adjudication. Do not cite as a holding.

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A restraint on bank accounts, lockers and demat accounts imposed under an interim order against named noticees does not reach a third party's interest in those assets merely because she is a joint holder with a noticee. Where the third party is not a noticee and no adverse finding is made against her, the restraint on her assets cannot rest on the joint holding alone and must be lifted. Where a non-noticee joint holder shows that she was separated from the noticee before the alleged violations, through a divorce decree and consent terms, and produces documents disclaiming the co-holders' rights and showing that the assets are reflected in her own financial records, the freeze on those assets is to be released. The continuing presence of co-holders' names is then addressed by directing the joint holder to remove them, not by continuing the freeze.

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

Judgment

As delivered

WTM/GM/IVD/25A/2020-21SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAMISCELLANEOUS ORDER

On the representations from Ms. Purnima Sheth –In respect of ex parte ad interim order dated passed in the matter of Tara Jewels Limited.

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) passed an ex parte ad interim order dated September 04, 2020 (“interim order”) in the matter of Tara Jewels Limited against the following entities, namely,-

Sl. No. Entity Name PAN No.

1. Rajeev Vasant Sheth AAFPS7760Q

2. Aarti Sheth AAGPS3762H

3. Divya Sheth AAHPS8431L

2. In the interim order, inter alia, following directions were issued against the aforesaid entities,- “47.In view of the foregoing, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me in terms of Section 19 read with Section 11(1), 11(4)(d) and 11B(1) of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 10 of the PIT Regulations, hereby issue the following directions:

48. I, hereby, impound from the below mentioned persons the alleged unlawful notional loss avoided, on account of trades carried out during the UPSI Period, as mentioned against the irrespective names in below table:

Miscellaneous Order in the matter of Tara Jewels Limited

Table-11

Name PAN Number Unlawful loss avoided (in ₹)

Rajeev Vasant Sheth AAFPS7760Q 1,26,59,481.50

Aarti Sheth AAGPS3762H 2,09,930.40

Divya Sheth AAHPS8431L 9,62,060.70

49. The persons mentioned inTable-11above are also directed that abovementioned individual amount of unlawful loss avoided is to be credited to an interest bearing Escrow Account [“Escrow Account in Compliance with SEBI Order dated September 04, 2020–A/c(in the name of the respective person)”] created specifically for the purpose in a Nationalized Bank. The Escrow Account(s) shall create a lien in favour of SEBI and the monies kept therein shall not be released without permission from SEBI.

50. Banks are directed that no debits shall be made, without permission of SEBI, in respect of the bank accounts held jointly or severally by the persons mentioned under Table-11, except for the purposes of transfer of funds to the Escrow Account. Further, the Depositories are also directed that no debit shall be made, without permission of SEBI, in respect of the demat accounts held by the aforesaid persons. However, credits, if any, into the accounts maybe allowed. Banks and the Depositories are directed to ensure that all the aforesaid directions are strictly enforced. Further, debits may also be allowed for amounts available in the account in excess of the amount to be impounded. Banks are allowed to debit the accounts for the purpose of complying with this Order.”

3. After passing of the interim order, SEBI received a representation made on behalf of Ms. Purnima Sheth, vide email dated September 15, 2020 in respect of the aforesaid interim order passed by SEBI.

4. Brief of the representations made is as follows:

i. Ms. Purnima Sheth was married to Rajeev Sheth and they have been separated since 2012, filed for divorce in 2016 and received consent for the same in 2017. She has been living separately from Rajeev Sheth since 2012.

ii. Due to the order dated September 04, 2020 passed by SEBI, following lockers, bank accounts and demat accounts, held by her jointly with her ex-husband/daughters have been frozen.

a. 2 lockers with Standard Chartered Bank(SCB) (one held jointly with her daughter and the other held jointly with her husband, daughter and one Mr. Farshid Cooper)

With respect to the locker held jointly with her husband, she submitted a copy of a letter sent to the bank in May 2016 requesting the bank to delete her husband’s name from the account. However, she has represented that the bank did not act on it.

b. Joint Savings account held with her husband in SCB

She has represented that she is the only owner of the funds in the said account and her husband’s name was added as joint holder before their divorce. The money lying in this account has been shown as part of her financial statements.

c. DP Account with SCB held jointly with her husband

The shares lying in this account has been received by her as part of the consent terms of the divorce proceedings. All transaction in this account has been done by her.

d. DP Account with HDFC Bank held jointly with her daughter

Her daughter’s name has been added to this account only for the sake of convenience. All transaction in this account has been done by her.

iii. As part of the representation, she has enclosed copies of letter from her husband, daughters and Mr. Farshid Cooper stating that they have no rights over the lockers/accounts/demat accounts listed above.

iv. She has also furnished a certificate from a CA certifying that money and shares lying in these accounts have been reflected in the income tax returns filed by her.

5. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing was granted on September 25, 2020, where Mr. Abeezar E Faizullabhoy, Senior Partner and Mr. Shahen Pradhan, Partner from Argus Partners, Solicitors and Advocates, appeared on behalf of Ms. Purnima Sheth. They made the following submissions during the course of the hearing, - i. There is no allegation against Ms. Purnima Sheth in the Order passed by SEBI.

ii. The bank accounts of Ms. Purnima Sheth were frozen by the banks because the SEBI order required the banks to freeze accounts jointly and severally held by the Noticees in the case. In such a case, only bank accounts held by the Noticees along with other co Noticees in the case would get covered under the directions passed by SEBI and the banks erroneously froze accounts jointly held by Ms. Purnima Sheth with the Noticees in the matter.

iii. The authorised representatives also undertook on behalf of Ms. Purnima Sheth to get names of the other joint holders removed from the aforementioned bank accounts, lockers and demat accounts. They also undertook to submit a copy of the decree of the court granting divorce to Ms. Purnima Sheth.

6. Thereafter, vide letter dated October 05, 2020, Ms. Purnima Sheth submitted a copy of the divorce decree along with the consent terms.

7. I have considered the interim order and the representations made on behalf of Ms. Purnima Sheth. I note that there are no adverse findings against the Ms. Purnima Sheth in the interim order. Her bank accounts, demat accounts and bank lockers have been frozen as her ex-husband and her two daughters are the Noticees in the interim order, and they are joint holders in such bank accounts, lockers and demat accounts.

8. Ms. Purnima Sheth has also submitted that she has been estranged from her husband and they were granted divorce in 2017. She has also submitted a copy of the divorce decree and the consent terms. Further, she also submitted that both her daughters are married and not dependent on her.

9. I, therefore, note that there is no adverse finding against Ms. Purnima Sheth in the interim order and her accounts were frozen only because they it was jointly held with her ex-husband and daughters, who were the Noticees in the interim order. She has submitted a copy of the divorce decree from which I note that they have divorced prior to the occurrence of the alleged violations covered in the interim order and the passing of the interim order.

10. In view of the above, I hereby direct that the following bank accounts, demat accounts and bank lockers of Ms. Purnima Sheth shall be de-freezed,-

Bank Accounts and Lockers (Standard Chartered Bank) 24110270382 (locker no. K-1480) 1.

24105047751 (locker no. D-1506) 2.

24110014408 – Savings Account 3.

24110014416 4.

Demat Accounts DP Id Client ID Bank 1.

IN300360 10619711 Standard Chartered 2. Bank

IN301549 59062968 HDFC Bank 3.

11. I also direct Ms. Purnima Sheth to expeditiously take steps for removing the names of the other joint holders in the above mentioned accounts as undertaken by her during the course of the hearing dated October 25, 2020.

12. Representations made by the Ms. Purnima Sheth stand disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

13. This order comes into force with immediate effect.

14. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to all the Ms. Purnima Sheth, Stock Exchanges, the relevant banks and the Depositories to ensure that the direction given above is strictly complied with.

Place: Mumbai G. MAHALINGAM Date: October 23, 2020 WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

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