Minority shareholders entitled to receive SEBI investigation documents despite Regulation 29 confidentiality provisions

Bombay HC held that minority shareholders of BNL were entitled to receive documents related to SEBI investigation and settlement proceedings. The court rejected arguments that Regulation 29's confidentiality provisions barred disclosure to shareholders, ruling that minority shareholders cannot be considered "public" under the regulation as they are integral company stakeholders with legitimate interests. The court emphasized that shareholders of the same class cannot claim confidentiality against each other, as this would create disharmony and damage company functioning. SEBI's investor protection mandate further supported disclosure rights. The petitioners were granted interim relief for document supply.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged violations of Securities laws by Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (BNL).
2. Petitioners' request for interim reliefs, specifically the production of investigation-related documents by SEBI.
3. Confidentiality concerns raised by respondents regarding the settlement proceedings documents.

Summary:

Issue 1: Alleged Violations of Securities Laws by BNL
The petitioners, minority shareholders of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (BNL), complained to SEBI about BNL's violations of various Securities laws, including minimum public sharing norms (MPS) and promoter disclosure requirements. SEBI investigated these complaints, issued a show cause notice to BNL, and observed prima facie violations. BNL, previously listed on non-functional stock exchanges, moved for a settlement of the show cause notice under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Settlement Proceedings) Regulation, 2018 ("2018 Regulations"), which the petitioners contested, leading to the impugned Settlement Order dated 12 September 2022.

Issue 2: Petitioners' Request for Interim Reliefs
The petitioners sought interim reliefs for SEBI to produce copies of the Investigation Report, Show Cause Notices, minutes of meetings of the IC Committee, HPAC and Panel of WTMs, and other relevant documents. The petitioners argued that these documents were crucial for their case, especially given their challenge to the impugned settlement order. They contended that the documents were necessary to understand the violations alleged and the basis for the settlement, emphasizing that withholding these documents caused them severe prejudice.

Issue 3: Confidentiality Concerns
Respondents, including BNL and its majority shareholders, opposed the petitioners' request, citing Regulation 29 of the 2018 Regulations, which mandates confidentiality of information submitted and discussions held during settlement proceedings. They argued that releasing these documents would prejudice the Board and the applicant and that the petitioners, as adversaries, should not be granted access to such confidential information. They also contended that the issue of document production was raised too late in the proceedings, suggesting that the petitioners had not suffered any prejudice due to the lack of these documents.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Court analyzed Regulation 29 and concluded that it does not impose a blanket prohibition on the release of documents. The regulation's confidentiality clause applies only if releasing the information would prejudice the Board or the applicant and is directed towards the public, not shareholders like the petitioners. The Court emphasized that shareholders have an inherent interest in the company's affairs and should not be considered outsiders.

The Court also noted that SEBI, in its fairness, agreed to produce the documents if directed by the Court. Given the petitioners' entitlement to these documents and the absence of any legal impediment, the Court granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (g). SEBI was directed to furnish the requested documents to the petitioners within three weeks.

Conclusion:
The Court granted the petitioners' request for interim relief, directing SEBI to provide the necessary documents related to the investigation and settlement proceedings. The case was adjourned for further hearing on 29 November 2023.

---