2003 (9) TMI 831 - AT - SEBI

SEBI Overstepped by Enforcing Companies Act via SEBI Act Section 11B; Tribunal Sets Aside Order.

Gold Multifab Limited and Ors. Versus Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

The Tribunal concluded that SEBI exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to enforce provisions of the Companies Act through Section 11B of the SEBI Act. ... - ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include: Whether the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had the jurisdiction to issue directions under Section 11B of the SEBI Act against the appellant company for alleged violations of the Companies Act. Whether the appellant company violated the provisions of Sections 69, 73(3A), and 77 of the Companies Act, 1956, in relation to its public issue of shares. Whether SEBI's order directing the promoters of the appellant company to provide an exit option to shareholders was valid under the Companies Act. Whether the proceedings initiated by SEBI were in violation of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). Whether the appellant company, being under the inquiry of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), was immune from SEBI's jurisdiction.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISJurisdiction under Section 11B of the SEBI Act: Legal Framework: Section 11B of the SEBI Act empowers SEBI to issue directions in the interest of investors or the orderly development of the securities market. The section applies to persons associated with the securities market. Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal found that while SEBI had the power to issue directions under Section 11B, it could not use this section to enforce provisions of the Companies Act, such as Sections 69, 73(3A), and 77, as these sections have their own enforcement mechanisms. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that SEBI's order was beyond its jurisdiction as it attempted to enforce provisions of the Companies Act through Section 11B of the SEBI Act.Alleged Violations of the Companies Act: Legal Framework: Sections 69, 73(3A), and 77 of the Companies Act, 1956, regulate the allotment of shares, maintenance of subscription money, and prohibition on a company buying its own shares, respectively. Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal noted that the consequences for non-compliance with these sections are provided within the Companies Act itself, and SEBI cannot enforce these provisions using the SEBI Act. Conclusions: SEBI's order based on alleged violations of these sections was found to be without jurisdiction.Exit Option for Shareholders: Legal Framework: The Companies Act provides specific remedies and procedures for dealing with issues related to share allotment and shareholder rights. Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal held that SEBI's direction to offer an exit option to shareholders was not in alignment with the Companies Act, which already provides remedies for such situations.Proceedings under SICA: Legal Framework: Section 22 of SICA provides that no proceedings for winding up or recovery against a company under inquiry by BIFR shall proceed without the consent of the Board. Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal found that SEBI's proceedings did not fall within the scope of Section 22 of SICA, as they were not related to winding up or recovery against the company's assets.Immunity under BIFR Inquiry: Legal Framework: BIFR inquiries provide certain protections to companies under its purview. Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal determined that the appellant's status as a sick company under BIFR did not preclude SEBI's jurisdiction to investigate and take action for violations of securities laws.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Jurisdictional Limitation: 'Section 11B cannot be invoked to take action against those who contravene the provisions of sections 69, 73 and 77 of the Companies Act.' Core Principles Established: SEBI's powers under the SEBI Act are distinct and cannot be used to enforce the provisions of the Companies Act unless specifically authorized. Final Determination: The appeal was allowed, and SEBI's order was set aside for lack of jurisdiction. However, SEBI was not precluded from taking appropriate action under the SEBI Act for violations of securities laws.