Rbg Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.866 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question whether a director had authority to switch the appellant's mutual fund investment from one scheme to another is a matter pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in a related petition, and the Securities Appellate Tribunal will not decide it while that proceeding is pending. A complaint against a mutual fund that turns on an internal dispute between the investor and the fund, which is not a violation of any regulation framed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, does not warrant interference by the Board; the appropriate remedy for such a dispute lies elsewhere.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 16.11.2022 Misc. Application No.1395 of 2022 And Appeal No.866 of 2022 RBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. VI/93 Jew Town, Mattancherry, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682002, India. ...Appellant Versus 1. Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, 'G' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400051. 2. ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Ltd. One BKC, 13th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051, India. ...Respondents Mr. Pulkit Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Suyash Bhandari, Advocate i/b. Mindspright Legal for the Appellant. Mr. Sumit Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Chhangani, Ms. Samreen Fatima and Mr. Sumit Yadav, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2 1. The Misc. Application for exemption from filing of the certified copy of the impugned order is allowed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved by the disposal of its complaint on the SCORES platform by the communication dated 12th September, 2022 (Exhibit 22 of the memo of appeal).
3. The short contention raised is that the appellant had invested in mutual funds under a particular scheme and without their tacit consent or authority the mutual fund was switched to another scheme as a result of which the funds has been blocked for three years. 4. In this regard, the appellant has filed a complaint in the SCORES platform which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 12th September, 2022. 5. We find that with regard to the same dispute a petition is pending before the NCLAT. Consequently, the question whether a Director had the authority to 3 change the mutual funds of the appellant from one scheme to another is subject to such decision of NCLAT. 6. In any case, we do not find anything which requires SEBI to interfere as we do not find any violation of the regulations framed by SEBI. This pertains to an internal dispute between the appellant and respondent no.2 for which the remedy lies elsewhere. The appeal fails and is dismissed. 7. 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.
Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup RAJALAKS Digitally signed HMI by RAJALAKSHMI Technical Member HARISH NAIR 16.11.2022 HARISH NAIR Date: 2022.11.23 17:12:27 +05'30' RHN
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