TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Rules Mens Rea Unnecessary for Civil Penalties Under SEBI Act; Nominal Penalty Upheld Despite Delay in Filing.</h1> <h3>Securities & Exchange Board of India Versus Cabot International Capital Corporation</h3> Securities & Exchange Board of India Versus Cabot International Capital Corporation - [2004] 51 SCL 307 (BOM.) Issues Involved:1. Whether mens rea is sine qua non for imposing penalty for breach of SEBI Act and Regulations.2. Applicability of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997 to the preferential allotments.3. Liability for penalty under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act due to delay in filing the report.4. Nature of proceedings under SEBI Act - whether civil or criminal.5. Discretion of the Adjudicating Officer in imposing penalties.Summary:Issue 1: Mens Rea RequirementThe primary issue was whether mens rea is sine qua non for imposing penalty for breach of the SEBI Act and Regulations. The court concluded that mens rea is not essential for imposing civil penalties under the SEBI Act and Regulations. The proceedings for imposition of penalty are adjudicatory in nature and not criminal or quasi-criminal. The penalty under SEBI Act is for breach of civil obligations and does not require proof of mens rea.Issue 2: Applicability of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997The SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997, apply to the preferential allotments in question. Both SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1994 and 1997 govern takeover and substantial acquisition of shares. The acquirer availing exemption under regulation 3(1)(c) was required to comply with regulation 3(4) and 3(5) by filing a report with SEBI within 21 days of acquisition.Issue 3: Liability for Penalty under Section 15A(b)There was a delay of 529 days in filing the report with SEBI. The report should have been filed by 22nd June 1997 but was filed on 3rd December 1998. The respondents were liable for penalty under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act due to this delay. The Adjudicating Officer imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 after considering all facts and circumstances.Issue 4: Nature of Proceedings under SEBI ActThe court clarified that the SEBI Act and the Regulations are not penal statutes but are regulatory and remedial in nature. Proceedings under Chapter VI-A relating to levy of penalties are adjudicatory and civil in nature, not criminal. The Adjudicating Officer performs quasi-judicial functions to determine liability for breach of civil obligations.Issue 5: Discretion of the Adjudicating OfficerThe Adjudicating Officer, after considering all facts and circumstances and provisions of section 15J, imposed a nominal penalty. The discretion exercised by the Adjudicating Officer was deemed appropriate and should not have been interfered with. The SAT's reversal of the Adjudicating Officer's order was maintained, but the reasoning that mens rea is required for imposing penalty was set aside.Result:The court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the SAT's reasoning that mens rea is required for imposing penalties but maintained the SAT's order reversing the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer. There was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 