Summary order. Appeal against the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai order dated 24 August 2022 is dismissed; pending application, if any, disposed of.

Penalty for contravention where no separate penalty has been provided under Section 15HB - Mandatory minimum penalty - Tribunal's power to reduce penalty - Judicial modification of administrative penalty ordersPenalty for contravention where no separate penalty has been provided under Section 15HB - Mandatory minimum penalty - Tribunal's power to reduce penalty - Whether the Tribunal could lawfully reduce the penalty below the statutory minimum prescribed by Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal had upheld violation under Section 15HB but reduced the penalty from the adjudicating authority's Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.75,000. The Court held that Section 15HB prescribes a statutory minimum penalty which cannot be reduced below one lakh rupees; therefore the Tribunal's reduction below the statutory floor was impermissible. Applying the statutory mandate, the Court modified the Tribunal's order by substituting the penalty imposed upon the affected noticees with the minimum penalty of Rs.1,00,000 in terms of Section 15HB. The Court left open the respondents' right to move the Court if they had objections to this modification.Tribunal's reduction of penalty below the statutory minimum set out in Section 15HB was impermissible; the penalty imposed on the specified noticees is modified to Rs.1,00,000 and the appeals are disposed of.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's reduction of penalty below the statutory minimum under Section 15HB, substituted the penalty for the named noticees to Rs.1,00,000 in accordance with Section 15HB, and disposed of the appeals, leaving respondents free to seek appropriate relief if so advised.

Role and duties of Compliance Officer under Regulation 19(3) (SEBI Buyback Regulations) - Liability of a Company Secretary for ensuring statutory compliance - Remand for fresh consideration by the Securities Appellate TribunalRole and duties of Compliance Officer under Regulation 19(3) (SEBI Buyback Regulations) - Liability of a Company Secretary for ensuring statutory compliance - Tribunal's interpretation of Regulation 19(3) and consequent exoneration of the Company Secretary - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal construed Regulation 19(3) of the SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations 1998 as limiting the role of the compliance officer (who was the Company Secretary) to redressal of investor grievances and held that authentication of board-approved documents did not require the Company Secretary to enquire into the veracity of the buyback offer documents. The Court found this construction erroneous because Regulation 19(3) expressly requires nomination of a compliance officer both to ensure compliance with the buyback regulations and to redress investor grievances. The Tribunal's reliance on the latter function alone ignored the clear twofold purpose of the provision. The WTM's finding that the Company Secretary, as a statutory official who authenticated the public announcement, bore responsibility to ensure statutory compliance was a matter for fresh adjudication in light of the correct interpretation of Regulation 19(3). [Paras 11]Tribunal's interpretation of Regulation 19(3) is set aside as contrary to its plain terms; the compliance officer's role includes ensuring compliance with the buyback regulations and the matter requires reconsideration.Remand for fresh consideration by the Securities Appellate Tribunal - Appropriate remedy and directions following the incorrect interpretation - HELD THAT: - Because the Tribunal misinterpreted Regulation 19(3), the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the facts and contentions in light of the correct interpretation that the compliance officer must ensure compliance with the buyback regulations as well as attend to investor grievances. The parties' rights to place reliance on prior decisions were kept open for reconsideration by the Tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide the case afresh and gave a timeline for disposal. [Paras 13, 14]Impuned Tribunal order set aside and the appeal restored to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh; Tribunal to try to decide within six months.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the Tribunal's narrow construction of Regulation 19(3) is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Securities Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration of liability and related contentions in light of the correct interpretation that the compliance officer must ensure compliance with the buyback regulations as well as redress investor grievances.

Related party transaction and shareholder approval - abstention from voting by related parties under Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 - rescission of special resolution and voting by related parties - SEBI adjudication and penalty under Regulation 23 of the Listing Obligations and Disclosure RequirementsAbstention from voting by related parties under Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 - rescission of special resolution and voting by related parties - related party transaction and shareholder approval - SEBI adjudication and penalty under Regulation 23 of the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements - Validity of voting by related parties at an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting convened to rescind an earlier special resolution approving a related party transaction, and the consequent validity of SEBI's penalty under Regulation 23. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted the view of the Securities Appellate Tribunal that the statutory prohibition on related parties voting under Section 188 operates at the time of entering into the contract or arrangement when the special resolution is passed. In the present facts, the related parties had abstained from voting when the special resolution approving the transaction was adopted on 15.07.2014. A later meeting convened on 16.12.2016 to rescind that resolution involved the related parties voting in the rescission; the Appellate Tribunal found no illegality in such voting. The Supreme Court observed that this interpretation is a plausible view in the circumstances of the case, that no mala fide or ill-intent by the respondents was established, and that a hyper-technical approach by the regulator was rightly disapproved. Having regard to these findings, the adjudication order imposing a penalty was not sustained.Appeal dismissed; SEBI's challenge to the Appellate Tribunal's allowance of the respondents' appeal and the consequent set-aside of the Adjudicating Officer's penalty is declined.Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Securities Appellate Tribunal's decision was dismissed. The Tribunal's view-that the prohibition on related parties voting under Section 188 applies at the time of entering into the arrangement and that voting at a subsequent meeting to rescind the resolution did not attract penalty under Regulation 23 in these facts-was endorsed as a plausible conclusion and SEBI's appeal fails.

Penalty imposed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Criminal prosecution for non-payment of statutory penalty - Quashing of criminal proceedings on deposition of penalty and interest - Interest liability on admitted penalty pending litigationCriminal prosecution for non-payment of statutory penalty - Quashing of criminal proceedings on deposition of penalty and interest - Criminal proceedings initiated for non-payment of the SEBI adjudicated penalty were quashed upon specified compliance by the petitioner. - HELD THAT: - The Adjudicating Officer's penalty order dated 30.04.2012 imposing a monetary penalty under the SEBI Act had attained finality. Proceedings were instituted in the Special Court for alleged non-payment. During pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner deposited the principal penalty amount. Taking into account the deposit of the penalty and the peculiar facts of the case, the Court directed a further deposit towards interest and, upon such deposit, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated in Special Case No.SEBI/3/2019. The quash order is conditional on the specified further deposit and is confined to the facts of the case.Upon deposit of a further sum by the petitioner towards interest within the stipulated period, the criminal proceedings in the Special Court are quashed.Interest liability on admitted penalty pending litigation - Finality of adjudication and consequential enforcement steps - The Supreme Court directed payment of an additional sum towards interest on the adjudicated penalty as a condition for quashing the criminal proceedings. - HELD THAT: - Although the petitioner had deposited the principal amount of the penalty during pendency of the petition, the Court noted that interest on the penalty remained in issue. Rather than permitting continuation of criminal proceedings, the Court exercised its discretion to require a further deposit of Rs.10 lakhs towards interest within eight weeks, as a pragmatic means to bring finality. The direction reflects a balance between enforcement of the adjudicated monetary obligation and termination of criminal process, applied to the specific facts before the Court.The petitioner was directed to deposit a further sum towards interest within eight weeks, failing which the relief of quashing would not follow; the order is confined to the peculiar facts and not to be treated as precedent.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit an additional sum towards interest within eight weeks; upon such deposit the criminal proceedings in the Special Court are quashed, the order being confined to the facts of the case and not to operate as precedent.

Attachment order - vacation of appellate stay - primacy of Supreme Court directions under Article 142 - jurisdictional impropriety of parallel appellate interference - recourse to a court appointed judicial officer for objections - escrow to secure contested funds pending adjudication - possession and transfer of attached property to implementing authorityAttachment order - vacation of appellate stay - primacy of Supreme Court directions under Article 142 - jurisdictional impropriety of parallel appellate interference - recourse to a court appointed judicial officer for objections - escrow to secure contested funds pending adjudication - Whether the interim order of SAT staying SEBI's attachment and permitting operation of accounts should be vacated and further proceedings before SAT stayed, and the manner in which objections to SEBI's attachment are to be adjudicated pending compliance with this Court's directions. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the attachment dated 1 March 2021 was issued by SEBI to implement directions issued by this Court under Article 142 and that the interim order of SAT entertaining appeals and permitting operation of accounts would, if allowed to stand, frustrate the implementation of this Court's directions. The Court found it inappropriate for SAT to have entertained the appeals in light of the supervisory scheme created by this Court and emphasised that parties aggrieved by SEBI's attachment should be permitted to move this Court and avail the mechanism created by the Court. Accordingly, the SAT order dated 26 March 2021 was vacated and further proceedings before SAT in the specified appeals were stayed. The Court directed that DDPL and Unicorn may submit their objections to the attachment to Shri R S Virk, the judicial officer appointed by this Court, who is empowered to obtain the view of the Enforcement Directorate; his report shall be placed before this Court after hearing the parties. Pending further orders, the attachment continues to operate to the extent of the amount identified for recovery, but the Court granted liberty to the companies to deposit that amount in an escrow to the satisfaction of SEBI, whereupon SEBI may modify the attachment to operate only in respect of the escrowed amount and may direct investment of escrowed funds in interest bearing fixed deposits. [Paras 13]The SAT order dated 26 March 2021 is vacated; further proceedings before SAT are stayed; objections to the attachment to be heard by Shri R S Virk and reported to this Court; the SEBI attachment remains in operation to the extent directed, subject to deposit in escrow in accordance with the directions.Possession and transfer of attached property to implementing authority - Whether possession of the immovable property at C 55, Sector 57, Noida should be handed over to SEBI (or its authorised representative) for administration under the Court's scheme. - HELD THAT: - The Official Liquidator was directed to hand over possession of the identified immovable property to the Nodal Officer cum Secretary of SEBI, an authorised representative of SEBI, subject to production of requisite title documents. SEBI was directed to publish a notice so that any person asserting a claim may have it adjudicated before Shri R S Virk. A claim by an unsecured creditor (PBCL) must be lodged in the requisite form to be processed within four weeks. The interlocutory application was made absolute and disposed of in these terms. [Paras 5]The Official Liquidator shall hand over possession of the Noida property to SEBI's authorised representative; SEBI to publish notice and claims to be adjudicated by Shri R S Virk; the interlocutory application is allowed.Appointment of judicial officer for objections - Whether the tenure of Shri R S Virk, the judicial officer appointed by this Court to examine claims and objections, should be extended. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the tenure of Shri R S Virk was due to expire on 31 October 2021 and extended his tenure to 31 March 2022 to ensure continuity in the adjudicatory mechanism established by the Court for the implementation of its directions. [Paras 2]The tenure of Shri R S Virk is extended until 31 March 2022.Claims evaluation by court appointed officer - release of properties confirmed on evaluation - Whether interlocutory applications seeking release or exclusion of specified properties from attachment, after evaluation by Shri R S Virk, should be allowed. - HELD THAT: - Applicants placed claims before Shri R S Virk, the judicial officer nominated by this Court, and those claims were found valid on evaluation. SEBI and the Justice R M Lodha Committee raised no objection to allowing the interlocutory applications in accordance with Shri R S Virk's evaluations. The Court accordingly allowed the batch of interlocutory applications and directed removal or release of the properties as assessed by Shri R S Virk, subject to the filing and processing of any outstanding claims in the prescribed manner. [Paras 3]The interlocutory applications in the identified batch are allowed in terms of the evaluations made by Shri R S Virk.Interim restraint on release of funds - Whether compensation payable to certain respondents should be restrained pending further orders. - HELD THAT: - In IA No.121435 of 2020 the Court issued notice returnable in three weeks and, pending further orders, directed that the first and second respondents shall not release the compensation to Respondent Nos. 3 to 29. This is an interim protective direction to preserve funds until the notice is adjudicated. [Paras 2]Issue notice; pending further orders, the first and second respondents shall not release the compensation to Respondent Nos. 3-29.Final Conclusion: SEBI's IA is allowed in part: the SAT interim order of 26 March 2021 is vacated and further proceedings before SAT stayed; objections to SEBI's attachment to be submitted to the Court appointed judicial officer whose report will be considered by this Court; the SEBI attachment continues to operate for the recovery amount unless that sum is deposited in escrow to SEBI's satisfaction; additional interlocutory applications concerning property possession, claim evaluations and tenure extension are disposed of in accordance with the directions recorded above.

Judicial review under Article 136 - Discretionary relief from interest on penalty - Conditional indulgence by deposit for further consideration - Dismissal of Special Leave Petition for non-complianceJudicial review under Article 136 - Discretionary relief from interest on penalty - Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to grant relief qua interest on the penalty already adjudicated up to the Supreme Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court concluded that there was no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 to grant the mercy relief sought by the petitioner in respect of interest payable on the penalty which has been finally determined up to the stage of the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought indulgence as to interest but had not paid the penalty amount; the Court noted this factual stance in declining to grant substantive relief. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the order imposing the penalty or its interest component.Relief under Article 136 declined; no interference with the penalty or its interest.Conditional indulgence by deposit for further consideration - Dismissal of Special Leave Petition for non-compliance - Whether the petition should be kept pending subject to deposit of the penalty amount and the consequences of non-compliance. - HELD THAT: - As a matter of conditional administrative indulgence, the Court granted a last opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount with the respondent by the stipulated date. The Court made clear that this opportunity was limited and purely prospective: if the deposit was not made by the deadline, the Special Leave Petition would be dismissed without any further order. The direction to deposit was incidental to the Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and served as a final procedural condition for any further consideration.Last opportunity granted to deposit the penalty amount by the specified date; failure to comply will result in dismissal of the SLP without further order.Final Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to relieve the petitioner from interest on the finalized penalty; a final opportunity was granted to deposit the penalty amount by the specified date, failing which the Special Leave Petition will stand dismissed without further order.

Admission of appeal - Interim relief - Deposit in Investors' Protection Fund - Stay on recovery pending appeal - Debarment from dealing in equity derivatives - Disgorgement and payment with interestAdmission of appeal - The appeal against the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal dated 5 November 2020 is admitted. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the split verdict of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, including a dissent by its Chairperson, and having regard to the issues raised granted admission of the appeal for hearing on merits. No further adjudication on merits is recorded at this stage. [Paras 2]Appeal admitted against the Securities Appellate Tribunal order dated 5 November 2020.Debarment from dealing in equity derivatives - Disgorgement and payment with interest - The appellants have complied with the debarment order and were subject to payment of the disgorged amount with interest as directed by the Whole Time Member of SEBI. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that the appellants have complied with the debarment from dealing in equity derivatives for one year imposed by the Whole Time Member of SEBI. The underlying regulatory direction requiring payment of the disgorged amount with simple interest at the specified rate from the specified date remains in effect and forms the subject-matter of the admitted appeal. [Paras 3]Compliance with the debarment order recorded; obligation to pay disgorged amount with interest remains as directed by the Whole Time Member of SEBI.Interim relief - Deposit in Investors' Protection Fund - Stay on recovery pending appeal - Interim directions: appellants to deposit a specified amount in the Investors' Protection Fund and recovery of the balance (inclusive of interest) stayed pending appeal. - HELD THAT: - As interim relief and without adjudicating the merits, the Court directed that the appellants shall deposit the specified sum into the Investors' Protection Fund within four weeks, in compliance with the order of the Whole Time Member, subject to the final result of the appeal. Simultaneously, the Court ordered a stay on recovery of the remaining amount inclusive of interest during the pendency of the appeal. These measures preserve the status quo and secure funds for investor protection while permitting appellate adjudication. [Paras 4]Appellants directed to deposit the specified sum in the Investors' Protection Fund within four weeks; recovery of the balance inclusive of interest stayed pending the appeal.Final Conclusion: The appeal is admitted; the Court recorded compliance with the debarment order and preserved the appellants' right to appellate review by directing an interim deposit into the Investors' Protection Fund and staying recovery of the balance inclusive of interest pending the appeal.

Adverse observations - Judicial restraint in casting aspersions on regulator - Dilution of disparaging remarks - Direction to authority to decide complaints within specified timeAdverse observations - Judicial restraint in casting aspersions on regulator - Dilution of disparaging remarks - Adverse observations in Paragraph No. 20 of the impugned order were unwarranted and have been diluted. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that certain expressions in Paragraph No. 20 - including that a "computer generated disposal of a serious complaint speaks volume on the conduct of the respondents" and references to a "vested interest in not deciding the matter" - were not called for. While acknowledging there may have been some remissness on the part of SEBI in discharging its regulatory functions, the Court concluded that casting aspersions in the facts and circumstances of the case was unwarranted and accordingly diluted those adverse observations. [Paras 2, 3]Paragraph No. 20's adverse observations are diluted.Direction to authority to decide complaints within specified time - SEBI was directed to deal with the complaints positively and objectively within four months from the date of the order. - HELD THAT: - The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying complaints. Instead, in response to the prayer for relief, the Court granted SEBI a limited, time-bound direction to consider and decide the complaints in accordance with law within four months. This constitutes an order for fresh and positive consideration by the regulatory authority rather than an adjudication on merits by the Court. [Paras 4, 5]SEBI directed to decide the complaints positively and objectively within four months; merits not decided by the Court.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by diluting the unwarranted adverse observations in the impugned order and by directing SEBI to consider and decide the complaints positively and objectively within four months; the Court otherwise refrained from adjudicating the merits.

Summary order. Appeals dismissed; impugned Tribunal orders upheld; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the question of effect and legal consequences of Order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India before the High Court.

Summary order. Notice issued to respondents; observations in paragraph 78 of the impugned judgment concerning the powers and jurisdiction of SEBI are stayed until the next date of hearing; respondents to file reply, if any, within two weeks; matter listed for the second week of December 2019.

Interference with Tribunal order - Dismissal of appeal - Reservation of question of lawInterference with Tribunal order - Dismissal of appeal - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeals. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the appeals against the Tribunal's order and found no ground for interference. There is no separate reasoning recorded in the order beyond the Court's conclusion to uphold the Tribunal's decision and dismiss the appeals. [Paras 1]Appeals dismissed; impugned order of the Tribunal upheld.Reservation of question of law - A question of law arising in the proceedings was not decided and was left open by the Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court expressly refrained from deciding the legal question raised and recorded that the question of law would remain open for future consideration. No determination on the merits of that question was made in the present order. [Paras 2]Question of law kept open for future adjudication.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's order, while expressly reserving (keeping open) the question of law for future consideration; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Summary order. IA No. 156587/2019 allowed; no interference with the Tribunal's order; appeal dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Non-compliance with Regulation 7(1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 - Penalty under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act and consequential interest and recovery - Prosecution under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act - Compounding of offence under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act subject to conditions - Judicial exercise of power to compound having regard to conduct and mitigating factorsNon-compliance with Regulation 7(1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 - Penalty under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act - Findings of violation of the takeover disclosure obligations and imposition of an adjudication penalty were upheld. - HELD THAT: - The Adjudication Order dated 22 April 2003 unequivocally records that the appellants violated Regulation 7(1) and (2) of the SAST Regulations, 1997, attracting a penalty under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act. That penalty was not paid, leading to initiation of prosecution under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act. The Court accepted the factual and legal conclusion of contravention as recorded in the adjudication proceedings and proceeded on that basis for consideration of compounding.The adjudication finding of violation and the consequent liability to penalty and prosecution stand affirmed for the purposes of the present disposal.Compounding of offence under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act subject to conditions - Judicial exercise of power to compound having regard to conduct and mitigating factors - Interest and recovery in relation to unpaid penalty - Compounding of the prosecution was permitted on specified payment terms and within a stipulated time, notwithstanding earlier rejection by the Special Court and High Court. - HELD THAT: - During the pendency of prosecution, the appellants had not paid the adjudicated penalty but later deposited the principal penalty amount and undertook to pay accrued interest. Respondents indicated no objection to compounding if the assured amounts were deposited. Having regard to the appellants' age and the factual matrix, and notwithstanding earlier reservations as to conduct, the Court exercised its power to compound the offence. The compounding was made conditional on payment of the sums assured by the appellants within two weeks and on payment of an additional penalty as directed by this Court. The Court expressly limited its order to compounding on those conditions and refrained from adjudicating broader legal questions raised by the appellants.The appeal was disposed of by permitting compounding of the offence on deposit of the assured amounts within two weeks and payment of an additional penalty as directed by the Court.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court, without deciding the larger legal questions raised, disposed of the appeal by permitting compounding of the prosecution under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act on the appellants depositing the adjudicated penalty (already partly deposited), the accrued interest and by paying an additional penalty within two weeks, as directed.

Stay of direction - title deeds - interim preservation of property rights - continuation of resolution professional's functions - restraint on creating encumbranceStay of direction - title deeds - restraint on creating encumbrance - Stay granted on the NCLT direction requiring SEBI to hand over title deeds to the resolution professional; SEBI restrained from creating any encumbrance on the properties held by virtue of those title deeds. - HELD THAT: - The Court granted an interim stay of the part of the NCLT order that directed SEBI to hand over title deeds to the resolution professional, thereby suspending enforcement of that specific directive. Concurrently, the Court expressly prohibited SEBI from creating any encumbrance on the properties in respect of which SEBI holds title deeds, preserving the status quo and protecting the proprietary rights associated with those deeds while the matter is adjudicated further. This relief is interlocutory and limited to the direction concerning handover and encumbrances.Stay of the NCLT direction to hand over title deeds; SEBI restrained from creating encumbrances on the properties concerned.Continuation of resolution professional's functions - interim preservation of property rights - Resolution professional permitted to continue performing his functions in the interim. - HELD THAT: - While the stay operates in respect of the specific direction to hand over title deeds, the Court allowed the resolution professional to continue to discharge his statutory functions pending further hearing. This temporal and limited permission ensures continuity of the insolvency resolution process without prejudice to the interim preservation measures ordered against SEBI regarding the title deeds.Resolution professional may continue to perform his functions in the meantime.Final Conclusion: Interim relief granted: the NCLT direction to SEBI to hand over title deeds is stayed; SEBI is restrained from creating any encumbrance on those properties; and the resolution professional is permitted to continue performing his functions pending further orders. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder to be filed and matter listed for hearing in the week commencing 8 July 2019.

Dismissal of special leave petition - refusal to interfere with impugned order - liberty to seek available remedies after adverse adjudicationDismissal of special leave petition - refusal to interfere with impugned order - liberty to seek available remedies after adverse adjudication - Special leave petition dismissed and court declined to interfere with the impugned order while preserving the petitioner's right to pursue remedies if adjudication under the show cause notice is adverse. - HELD THAT: - The Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and expressly stated it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, thereby dismissing the special leave petition. The Court nevertheless granted the petitioner liberty to avail itself of any remedy that may be open in the event the adjudication pursuant to the show cause notice proves adverse to the petitioner. No substantive adjudication on the merits of the show cause notice was undertaken by the Court in this order.Special leave petition dismissed; impugned order left undisturbed; petitioner permitted to seek available remedies if adjudication is adverse.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is dismissed; the impugned order is not interfered with, and the petitioner is left free to pursue any remedy available in law if the adjudication on the show cause notice is adverse.

Permission to file statutory appeal - Maintainability of appeal before Securities Appellate Tribunal - Continuation of interim order / preservation of status quo - Setting aside of impugned judgments and ordersPermission to file statutory appeal - Securities Appellate Tribunal jurisdiction - Respondent Nos.1 and 2 granted leave to file a statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 23rd July, 2011. - HELD THAT: - The Court exercised its discretion to permit Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to institute the statutory remedy of appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 23rd July, 2011. Time of thirty days from the date of the order is granted for filing the appeal, and the Securities Appellate Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits if filed within the stipulated period. The direction recognises the availability of the appellate forum and mandates that the appeal be adjudicated on its merits.Permission granted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file a statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal within thirty days; SAT to hear the appeal on merits.Continuation of interim order / preservation of status quo - The interim order previously passed by this Court on 22nd March, 2012 shall continue to operate. - HELD THAT: - Pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court continued the interim order dated 22nd March, 2012. The effect of the continuation is that any proceedings, decisions or actions taken pursuant to the order dated 23rd July, 2011 by the Forward Markets Commission (now SEBI) shall abide by the final result of the appeal. This preserves the status quo and prevents implementation of the challenged order until the appellate forum decides the matter.Interim order of 22nd March, 2012 continued; actions pursuant to the 23rd July, 2011 order to abide by the final result of the appeal.Setting aside of impugned judgments and orders - The impugned judgments and orders are set aside and the special leave petitions are disposed of. - HELD THAT: - In view of granting permission to file the statutory appeal and continuing the interim order, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders and disposed of the special leave petitions. The disposal is by way of permitting the appellants to pursue the statutory remedy before the Securities Appellate Tribunal and by preserving the interim protections granted earlier by this Court.Impugned judgments and orders set aside; special leave petitions disposed of; pending applications disposed of.Final Conclusion: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal within thirty days; the interim order of 22nd March, 2012 was continued to preserve the status quo pending the appeal; consequently the impugned judgments and orders were set aside and the special leave petitions disposed of.

Dismissal of civil appeals for want of substance - prohibition on collection of further amounts pending registration as a Collective Investment Scheme - obligation to furnish quarterly statements to the Securities and Exchange Board of IndiaDismissal of civil appeals for want of substance - prohibition on collection of further amounts pending registration as a Collective Investment Scheme - obligation to furnish quarterly statements to the Securities and Exchange Board of India - Civil appeals dismissed; respondent restrained from collecting further amounts until registered as a CIS and directed to furnish quarterly statements to SEBI. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, found no substance in the appeals and dismissed the civil appeals. As part of the order, the Court directed that the respondent shall not collect any further amounts from investors until it obtains registration as a Collective Investment Scheme. In addition, the respondent was required to furnish details to the Securities and Exchange Board of India of the amounts disbursed by it at the end of every quarter. The Court specified that the first such quarterly statement was to be submitted in the first week of October and cover payments made up to 30th September, 2016. The order disposes of any pending applications.Appeals dismissed; respondent prohibited from collecting further amounts until CIS registration and directed to submit quarterly statements to SEBI, first statement due in the first week of October concerning payments up to 30th September, 2016.Final Conclusion: Civil appeals dismissed for lack of substance; respondent restrained from further collection until registered as a Collective Investment Scheme and directed to submit quarterly statements to SEBI, with the first statement due in the first week of October for payments up to 30 September 2016.

Summary order. Delay condoned; the civil appeals are dismissed.