Appellant's Charges Partially Upheld, Debarment Quashed

The Tribunal partially upheld charges against the Appellant for failure to conduct proper due diligence and disclose related party transactions. However, due to the harshness of the five-year debarment already undergone, the Tribunal quashed the remaining punishment. All appeals were partly allowed with no costs imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to ensure disclosure of material facts in the RHP and Prospectus.
2. Failure to prevent misrepresentation in respect of the amount of term loan availed by the Issuer Company.
3. Non-disclosure of suppliers and agreements for purchase of granules.
4. Non-disclosure of agreements for purchase of land.
5. Non-disclosure of purchase orders placed by the Issuer Company for plant and machinery.
6. Decision to invest IPO proceeds in ICDs of other companies.
7. Failure to conduct due diligence by the Merchant Banker.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Failure to ensure disclosure of material facts in the RHP and Prospectus:
The primary allegation was that the Appellant failed to disclose funds raised by the Issuer Company through Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs), which were in the nature of bridge loans. The Appellant argued that they were only provided with an extract of the Resolution passed in the Board Meeting held on 17th August 2011 and not the full Minutes. They relied on various Statutory Auditors’ Certificates and conducted their own exhaustive enquiries. The Tribunal found that the Appellant could not be condemned for not disclosing the matter regarding the raising of funds through ICDs by the Issuer Company in the Offer Documents, as the Appellant was not provided with the full Minutes of the Board Meeting.

2. Failure to prevent misrepresentation in respect of the amount of term loan availed by the Issuer Company:
The Appellant disclosed the amount of term loan and line of credit availed by the Issuer Company in multiple places in the RHP, indicating no intention of concealment. The Tribunal concluded that the misrepresentation was an inadvertent oversight rather than intentional concealment.

3. Non-disclosure of suppliers and agreements for purchase of granules:
The Issuer Company did not enter into any long-term supply agreements for plastic granules, and the names of certain companies were not mentioned in the list of suppliers provided by the Issuer Company. The Tribunal found that the Issuer Company had not disclosed these agreements to the Merchant Banker, and thus, the Appellant could not have incorporated them despite any degree of due diligence.

4. Non-disclosure of agreements for purchase of land:
The details of agreements for the purchase of land were neither available in the public domain nor in the minutes of the company’s Board Meetings. The Tribunal found that the Merchant Banker could not have been expected to anticipate the execution of such agreements, which the Issuer Company concealed.

5. Non-disclosure of purchase orders placed by the Issuer Company for plant and machinery:
The Appellant disclosed details of quotations received for procurement of plant and machinery in the RHP. The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not have any means of knowing the existence of any purchase orders except those disclosed in the Offer Document.

6. Decision to invest IPO proceeds in ICDs of other companies:
The Tribunal found that the decision to invest IPO proceeds in ICDs was a post-IPO transaction, which the Appellant could not have controlled. The Appellant was not privy to the Issuer Company’s intentions, and the Appellant’s conduct was unimpeachable in this regard.

7. Failure to conduct due diligence by the Merchant Banker:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the Appellant conducted independent due diligence, obtained various certifications and undertakings, and relied on Comfort Letters issued by the Statutory Auditors. However, the Appellant should have analyzed the bank accounts of the Issuer Company for the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant did not perform its duty properly in the matter of due diligence but found the punishment of five years of debarment to be extremely harsh and disproportionate.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found some merit in the charges against the Appellant regarding non-perusal of bank statements and disclosure of related party transactions. However, considering the punishment already undergone, the Tribunal quashed the remnant punishment imposed. All appeals were partly allowed with no order as to costs.

---