Price Waterhouse, Bangalore vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 21.06.2017

Appeal No. 138 of 2017

Price Waterhouse Bangalore 5th Floor, Tower D, The Millennia, 1 & 2 Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore - 560008. ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ...Respondent Mumbai - 400 051.

WITH Appeal No. 139 of 2017

Price Waterhouse, Bangalore Price Waterhouse Bangalore 5th Floor, Tower D, The Millennia, 1 & 2 Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore - 560008. ...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

WITH Appeal No. 140 of 2017

Price Waterhouse, Bangalore Price Waterhouse Bangalore 5th Floor, Tower D, The Millennia, 1 & 2 Murphy Road, Ulsoor, ...Appellant Bangalore - 560008.

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent 2

WITH Appeal No. 141 of 2017 Price Waterhouse, Bangalore Price Waterhouse Bangalore 5th Floor, Tower D, The Millennia, 1 & 2 Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore - 560008. ...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. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Mr. Zerick Dastur, Ms. Prerna Arora, Ms. Archana Uppuluri, Mr. Kunal Kothary, Mr. Abishek V. and Mr. Dhaval K., Advocate i/b Zerick Dastur Advocate & Solicitors for the Appellant.

Mr. Fredun DeVitre, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay and Mr. Nirav Parmar, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM : Jog Singh, Member Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Jog Singh, Member (Oral)

1.

In this bunch of four appeals, the Appellants have challenged the

orders dated May 31, 2017, May 19, 2017, June 5, 2017 and June 15, 2017

respectively passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for

short).

2. With the consent of the parties, these appeals are taken up for final

disposal at the admission stage itself and are being heard and disposed of by

the present order.

3

*3. The primary grievance raised by the Appellant is that the Ld. Whole

Time Member ('WTM' for short) has abruptly closed the cross-examination

of some witnesses, namely, CH Ravindranath, Siva Prasad Pulavarthi,

Srinivas Talluri, Subramani Gopalakrishna, Mr. VVK Raju, Mr. Prekki

Srinivasa Sudhakar and Ms. Madduri Naga Venkata Gayatri, causing

prejudice to the Appellant's defence. It is argued by Shri Janak Dwarkadas,

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that full cross-examination of

these witnesses is crucial from the point of view of the Appellant. It is

against the principles of natural justice that the ongoing cross-examination

of a witness is curtailed in the manner in which it has been sought to be

done in the present case. Shri Fredun DeVitre, Learned Senior Counsel for

SEBI has contended that sufficient opportunity of cross-examination has

already been afforded to the Appellant to enable it to conduct an effective

cross-examination of the witnesses being relied upon by SEBI.

4. We have heard both the Learned Senior Counsel for the parties for

quite some time. We note that cross-examination of a witness is a valuable

right and any abrupt time limit on cross-examination would lead to

curtailment of a valuable right. The amount of cross-examination would

depend on the facts and circumstances of each case depending upon the

complexities of issues involved therein. However, it may not be out of place

to note that a blanket right of cross-examination cannot be claimed by party

irrespective of the peculiarity of the facts and issues of a case.

Indiscriminate cross-examination of a witness by posing him patently

irrelevant and inadmissible questions cannot be allowed by the WTM in a

given case if it found that the cross-examination is going in a rambling way.

In such an eventuality the authority will be entitled to record the reasons for

closure of the cross-examination if it is convinced that sufficient opportunity

of cross-examination has been given to a party in a particular case. 4

*5. Be that as it may, Shri DeVitre, Learned Senior Counsel for SEBI, on

instruction, has fairly stated that further cross-examination of these

witnesses, namely, (1) CH Ravindranath, (2) Siva Prasad Pulavarthi

(3) Srinivas Talluri, (4) Subramani Gopalakrishna (5) Mr. VVK Raju

(6) Mr. Prekki Srinivasa Sudhakar and (7) Ms. Madduri Naga Venkata

Gayatri shall be afforded to the Appellant as soon as these witnesses become

available for the said purpose, provided the Appellant cross-examines these

witnesses on the same day as and when they are produced by SEBI for the

purpose of remaining cross-examination, if any.

6. In the circumstances, we set aside the 4 impugned orders dated May

31, 2017, May 19, 2017, June 5, 2017 and June 15, 2017 and allow these

appeals by directing the Appellant to cross-examine the above said

witnesses preferably on the same day when they are produced for the

purpose of cross-examination and SEBI shall make an endeavour to produce

these witnesses for cross-examination as expeditiously as possible as it is an

old matter.

7. With the aforesaid directions, these four appeals stand allowed with

no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

21.06.2017 Prepared and compared by:

msb

* Amended pursuant to Order dated 23rd June, 2017.

5 "1. Not on board. Mentioned by the Counsel for the parties by praecipes.

2. By these two praecipes preferred by the appellant as well as the

Respondent, it is brought to the notice of the Tribunal that in paragraph 3 of

Order dated 21st June, 2017, inadvertently it has been recorded that cross-

examination in respect of 7 witnesses was abruptly curtailed. In fact, Shri

CH Ravindranath, Siva Prasad Pulavarthi, Srinivas Talluri, and Subramani

Gopalakrishna were refused to be produced by SEBI at the first instance.

During the course of hearing in Appeal No.138 of 2017, Shri DeVitre,

Learned Senior Counsel for SEBI, on instruction, stated that they have no

objection to produce Shri CH Ravindranath and Shri Siva Prasad Pulavarthi

for cross-examination as and when they become available. Whereas the

statements of Srinivas Talluri and Subramani Gopalakrishna earlier recorded

would not be relied upon against the appellant or 10 other PW entities who

are also the noticees and hence, these persons will not be produced for

cross-examination. Mr. DeVitre, learned Senior Counsel for SEBI has no

objection to this concession. As far as 3 other witnesses Mr. VVK Raju, Mr.

Prekki Srinivasa Sudhakar and Ms. Madduri Naga Venkata Gayatri are

concerned, these witnesses will be produced by SEBI for further cross-

examination in terms of para 5 & 6 of our order dated 21st June,2017. It may

be recorded for the sake of clarification that these last 3 witnesses namely,

Mr. VVK Raju, Mr. Prekki Srinivasa Sudhakar and Ms. Madduri Naga

Venkata Gayatri are the subject matter of Appeal Nos. 139, 140 and 141 of

2017, respectively.

2. Paragraphs 3 and 5 of our Order dated 21st June, 2017 accordingly

stand modified. Registry is directed to incorporate this order at the end of

the Order dated 21st June, 2017 and reissue the same order along with this

amendment to the parties today itself.

6

3. Praecipes are disposed of accordingly."

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

23.06.2017 Prepared & compared by-dg