Disclosure in securities proceedings: relied-upon material and complainant identity may be shared, but premature cross-examination can be refused.

In proceedings carrying civil consequences, disclosure needed for an effective defence was allowed where the appellants sought the complainants' identity and the correspondence relied upon by SEBI, subject to redaction of confidential and personal information. Requests for trading ledgers and profit and loss statements not in SEBI's possession or not relied upon were rejected. The appellants were permitted to raise the issue of an unmasked Section 65B certificate and obtain appropriate disclosure, but requests for file notings and vague additional documents were refused. Cross-examination was held premature before the reply to the show cause notice was filed and could be renewed at the appropriate stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to disclosure of the complainants' identity and the correspondence/discussions relied upon by SEBI. (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to the verified trading ledgers and profit and loss statements of all complainants or sampled material not relied upon by SEBI. (iii) Whether the appellants were entitled to an unmasked certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and to file notings or other general documents. (iv) Whether cross-examination could be sought before filing of the reply to the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to disclosure of the complainants' identity and the correspondence/discussions relied upon by SEBI.

Analysis: The proceedings entailed civil consequences, and effective rebuttal required the appellants to know the complainants and the material exchanged with them. The asserted concern of confidentiality did not outweigh the need for disclosure of the identity particulars sought. As regards the correspondence and discussions, SEBI was prepared to furnish the remaining material after redaction of confidential and personal information.

Conclusion: In favour of the appellants. The request for complainants' particulars was allowed, and the request for correspondence/discussions was also allowed to the extent indicated.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to the verified trading ledgers and profit and loss statements of all complainants or sampled material not relied upon by SEBI.

Analysis: SEBI had already supplied the trade logs and order logs of sampled complainants that had been perused by it. It had not obtained or relied upon trading ledgers for all complainants. A noticee cannot insist on production of material not in the authority's possession or not relied upon in the proceeding.

Conclusion: Against the appellants. The request was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants were entitled to an unmasked certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and to file notings or other general documents.

Analysis: The request for the Section 65B certificate raised a question of law and the appellants were permitted to raise the point in reply, so a specific direction was considered necessary. By contrast, file notings were consistently treated as unnecessary to furnish to noticees, and the request for vaguely described additional documents was too general to entertain.

Conclusion: Partly in favour of the appellants. The request concerning the Section 65B certificate was accepted for appropriate disclosure, while the requests for file notings and other general documents were rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether cross-examination could be sought before filing of the reply to the show cause notice.

Analysis: Cross-examination was held to be appropriate only after pleadings were complete and the issues for decision were crystallised. Since the appellants had not yet filed their reply, the request was premature.

Conclusion: Against the appellants at this stage. The request was rejected with liberty to renew it before SEBI at the appropriate stage.

Final Conclusion: The appellants obtained only limited disclosure relief, while the remaining document requests and the premature prayer for cross-examination were declined or deferred.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings having civil consequences, an effective defence requires disclosure of relied-upon and necessary material, but requests for material not relied upon, too general in nature, or sought before pleadings are complete may be refused, and cross-examination ordinarily arises only after the issues are crystallised.

---