Gynaecologist's demat accounts frozen by NSDL under SEBI directives ruled illegal and arbitrary without prior notice

Bombay HC held that freezing of a practicing gynaecologist's demat accounts by NSDL under SEBI directives for alleged defaults by company Shrenuj was illegal and arbitrary. Court found petitioner's role as promoter ended after company incorporation, making him not liable for SEBI compliance failures. The freezing violated statutory provisions and natural justice principles as no prior notice was given. SEBI circular cannot override statutory requirements or constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 21, and 300A. Court ordered unfreezing of all shares and directed SEBI/BSE/NSE to jointly pay Rs.30 lakhs costs within two weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Freezing of Demat Accounts by SEBI, BSE, and NSE.
2. Legitimacy of SEBI Circulars and Regulations.
3. Role and Liability of Promoters.
4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice.
5. Compensation for Illegal Freezing of Demat Accounts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Freezing of Demat Accounts by SEBI, BSE, and NSE:
The petitions challenge the freezing of demat accounts under SEBI directives. The petitioner, Dr. Pradeep Mehta, a senior citizen and medical practitioner, had his demat account frozen by NSDL due to his past role as a promoter of Shrenuj & Company Limited. The court noted that the freezing of demat accounts extended beyond Shrenuj shares to other shares like ITC Limited, which was deemed illegal and arbitrary.

2. Legitimacy of SEBI Circulars and Regulations:
The court scrutinized SEBI Circulars dated 7 September 2016 and 26 October 2016, which were used to justify the freezing of demat accounts. It was argued that these circulars could not override the substantive provisions of the SEBI Act. The court found that SEBI did not have explicit powers under the SEBI Act to freeze demat accounts of promoters for shares held in companies other than the defaulting company.

3. Role and Liability of Promoters:
The court examined the definition and role of a promoter under various laws, including the Companies Act, 2013, and SEBI regulations. It was determined that the petitioner's role as a promoter ceased after the formation of Shrenuj in 1989, and he had no active involvement or control over the company's affairs. Consequently, the petitioner could not be held liable for the company's non-compliance with SEBI regulations.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, noting that no notice or hearing was provided to the petitioner before freezing his demat accounts. This lack of due process rendered the actions of SEBI, BSE, and NSE illegal. The court highlighted that any action affecting a person's property rights must follow due legal procedures and provide an opportunity for the affected party to be heard.

5. Compensation for Illegal Freezing of Demat Accounts:
The court acknowledged the severe impact on the petitioner, who was deprived of his property rights and unable to trade shares for several years. Considering the arbitrary and high-handed actions of SEBI, BSE, and NSE, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs to Dr. Pradeep Mehta and Rs. 50 lakhs to his son, Neil Pradeep Mehta, whose demat account was also frozen without justification.

Conclusion:
The court declared the freezing of the petitioners' demat accounts illegal and invalid, allowing them to freely deal with their shares. The court also directed SEBI, BSE, and NSE to jointly pay compensation to the petitioners for the undue hardships caused by the illegal actions. The judgment underscores the necessity for regulatory bodies to act within their legal bounds and adhere to principles of natural justice.

---