Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 19 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record, and the Tribunal will not recall or alter its earlier order on the strength of an asserted inconsistency where the record, read as a whole, supports the finding impugned. Where the adjudicating authority has itself found that the company received goods against the amount defaulted by the other party, a finding of the Tribunal that the money raised was received by the company and not misappropriated is not an error requiring correction, and a penalty fixed on that basis is not open to reconsideration on review.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 28.04.2023
Review Application No. 19 of 2023 And Misc. Application No. 500 of 2023 (Delay in filing the Review Application) In Appeal No. 554 of 2021
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ..... Applicant Mumbai - 400 051. (Org. Respondent)
Versus
Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Limited (earlier known as Zenith Birla India Limited) Dalamal House, 1st Floor, 206, J.B. Marg, ... Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. (Org. Appellant)
And Appeal No. 634 of 2022
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ..... Applicant Mumbai - 400 051. (Org. Respondent)
Versus
Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Limited 2
(earlier known as Zenith Birla India Limited) Dalamal House, 1st Floor, 206, J.B. Marg, ... Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. (Org. Appellant)
Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Mr. Deepanshu Agarwal, Ms. Misbah Dada, Mr. Shourya Tanay, Advocates i/b ELP for the Applicant.
Ms. Yugandhara Khanwilkar, Advocate with Ms. Dharshanadivya Subramanian, Ms. Siddhi K. Bhingarde, Advocates i/b Triad Law Chambers for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
A Review Application has been filed by Securities and
Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') for recall
of our order dated February 21, 2023 passed in the matter of Zenith
Steel Pipes and Industries Limited and other connected appeals.
2. We have heard Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned senior counsel
with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Mr. Deepanshu Agarwal, Ms. Misbah Dada,
Mr. Shourya Tanay, the learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.
Yugandhara Khanwilkar, the learned counsel with Ms.
Dharshanadivya Subramanian, Ms. Siddhi K. Bhingarde, the learned
counsel for the respondent.
3
3. The ground urged is that this Tribunal had recorded in
paragraph no. 5 of its order that out of USD 22.99 million, Vintage
repaid USD 8.53 million of the loan amount and, thereafter defaulted
the balance amount of USD 14.55 million. In paragraph no. 10 of
our order it was recorded that the proceeds of the GDR issue was
received partly by the company and that too belatedly and same
amount was adjusted by Euram Bank against default committed by
Vintage. It was, thus, urged that when this Tribunal has recorded
that Vintage had committed a default in the repayment of the loan
and the Whole Time Member in its order had directed the company
to take steps to bring back the balance amount, the Tribunal in
paragraph no. 18 of its order has committed an error in giving a
finding that the money raised through GDR has been received by the
company and has not been misappropriated. It was also urged that in
the light of this finding given by this Tribunal the direction of
reducing the penalty to Rs. 25 lakh in view of the aforesaid facts was
liable to be recalled.
4. On the face of it, the submission of the applicant appears to be
attractive but when we perused the record, we find that even though
the WTM directed the company to take steps to bring back the
money which was defaulted by Vintage, the AO in its order has 4
specifically accepted and has given a finding that the company has
received the goods against the defaulted amount from Vintage.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that there is no
error in our order and the assertion made in paragraph no. 18 does
not require any correction nor reduction of penalty as depicted in
paragraph no. 19 of our order requires any reconsideration.
6. The Review Application consequently 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 Technical Member PRAMILA Digitally signed by PRAMILA TANAJI 28.04.2023 TANAJI MISAL Date: 2023.04.28 PTM MISAL 17:49:59 +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