Rajbhushan Dixit vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 561 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principle: where the only charge against a non-executive director is that he signed the board resolution authorising a securities issue, and there is no finding that he played any other role in the issue or its implementation, the controversy is covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in Prafull Anubhai Shah v. SEBI, so that the impugned debarment and restraint orders insofar as they concern such directors cannot stand and are quashed at the admission stage without calling for a reply.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 30.08.2021
Misc. Application No. 858 of 2021 And Appeal No. 561 of 2021
Priyadarshan Mehta 22/10, Bhimbhai Mehta Bungalow, Pritamnagar 1st Slope, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad - 380 006. ...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
Ms. Poonam D. Gadkari, Advocate with Mr. Anil Shah, Ms. Kritika Nahate, Advocates i/b Juris Matrix Partners LLP Advocates & Solicitors for the Appellant.
Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Ms. Rashi Dalmia and Mr. Karthik Narayan, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent.
WITH Misc. Application No. 859 of 2021 And Appeal No. 562 of 2021 Vilas Joshi 95, Tarang, Jai Prakash Nagar, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400 063. ...Appellant Versus 2
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Ms. Poonam D. Gadkari, Advocate with Mr. Anil Shah, Ms. Kritika Nahate, Advocates i/b Juris Matrix Partners LLP Advocates & Solicitors for the Appellant.
Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Ms. Rashi Dalmia and Mr. Karthik Narayan, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent.
AND Misc. Application No. 864 of 2021 And Appeal No. 563 of 2021
Rajbhushan Dixit 204/12, Jawahar Nagar, Road No. 13, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 400 062. ...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
Ms. Poonam D. Gadkari, Advocate with Mr. Anil Shah, Ms. Kritika Nahate, Advocates i/b Juris Matrix Partners LLP Advocates & Solicitors for the Appellant.
Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Ms. Rashi Dalmia and Mr. Karthik Narayan, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent. 3
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
All the three appeals are filed against a common order
dated June 22, 2021 passed by the Whole Time Member
('WTM' for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of
India ('SEBI' for short) whereby the appellants have been
debarred from accessing the securities market for three years
and have also been restrained from holding any position in a
listed Company for a period of three years.
2. The appellants are non-executive directors in the
Company which issued Global Depository Receipts ('GDR'
for short) and which has been found to be violative of Section
12A and Regulation 3 and 4 of the SEBI (Prohibition of
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities
Market) Regulations, 2003 ('PFUTP Regulations' for short).
3. The only charge against the appellants is that they were
signatories to the resolution of the board of directors which
authorized the issuance of the GDR issues and which 4
authorized the Managing Director to execute the necessary
documents. Apart from that there is no finding that the
appellants had any other role to play in issuance and
implementation of the GDR issue.
4. In our view the controversy involved in the present
appeals is squarely covered by a decision of this Tribunal in
the matter of Prafull Anubhai Shah vs Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Appeal no. 389 of 2021 decided
on June 28, 2021).
5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order insofar as
it relates to the appellants are quashed at the admission itself
without calling for a reply. The appeals are allowed with no
order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications are also
disposed of.
6. 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 5
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 30.08.2021 RAJALA Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI KSHMI HDate:
NAIR
msb H NAIR 2021.09.01 15:46:28 +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