Tribunal upholds director's liability for refunding funds, emphasizes accountability

The Tribunal upheld the order directing a director to refund money collected through redeemable preference shares issued against public issue norms. Despite the appellant's argument of fraudulent directorship and lack of direct involvement in the share issuance, the Tribunal emphasized all directors' liability for refunding amounts collected from investors. The appellant's appearance on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal justified holding him accountable as a director. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of not being an "officer in default" and directed him to provide evidence of fraudulent directorship within a year for further SEBI action.

---

---

Issues:
- Responsibility of a director for refunding money collected through issuance of redeemable preference shares in contravention of public issue norms under the Companies Act, 1956.
- Dispute regarding the appellant's directorship and liability for acts of other directors.
- Interpretation of Sections 56 and 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in relation to the liability of directors.
- Examination of the concept of an "officer in default" under the Companies Act, 1956.
- Determination of liability of directors for refunding amounts collected from investors with interest.
- Consideration of SEBI's actions based on directorship status as per records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) portal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged an order directing the refund of money collected through redeemable preference shares, issued against public issue norms. The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that he became a director fraudulently and should not be held responsible for other directors' actions. SEBI contended that the appellant's appearance on the MCA portal justified holding him accountable.

2. Referring to a previous judgment involving a similar issue, the Tribunal highlighted that directors, including the appellant, were liable for refunds despite not directly issuing the shares. The Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to refund amounts collected from investors rests on all directors of the company, irrespective of individual involvement in the share issuance process.

3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of not being an "officer in default" under the Companies Act, 1956. It clarified that all directors are accountable if no specific officer is designated to fulfill obligations under the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that merely lending one's name as a director does not absolve the individual from refund obligations under the law.

4. SEBI's concern was the appellant's continued directorship as per the MCA portal records, making him liable for ensuring repayment despite not being a director during the share issuance resolution. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide evidence within a year proving fraudulent directorship, after which SEBI would take appropriate action based on the findings.

5. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the directive for the appellant to substantiate fraudulent directorship claims within the specified timeframe, leaving no order on costs incurred during the proceedings.

---