2025 (6) TMI 542 - AT - SEBI

Company Secretary cleared of buyback violations after signing announcement based on Board-approved audited accounts

V. Shankar Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India

Securities Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai allowed appeal by Company Secretary/Compliance Officer charged with unfair trade practices. Company made public ... Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market - responsibility Company Secretary and Compliance Officer - Public announcement made by the Company to buy back its equity shares without having adequate free reserves appellant was party to misleading the investors/ shareholders - appellant, as Company Secretary was liable for alleged violations of Sections 68 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956, Sections 12(a), (b), and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992, and Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 - Company has understated the outstanding loans and interest in finance charges etc., in the annual reports for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and being a signatory to the public announcement made by the company for the buy back of its equity shares without having adequate free reserves, appellant had misled the investors/ shareholders. HELD THAT:- Adjudicating authority has found fault with the appellant on an incorrect presumption that the appellant ought to have verified whether the audited accounts had contained all the assets and liabilities. If this reasoning is to be accepted, the appellant ought to have read, understood, re-audited the certified accounts of the Company already approved by the Board of Directors. That is not the duty of either the Company Secretary or the Compliance Officer. A Compliance Officer is appointed under Regulation 19(3) of the of the Buyback Regulations. The Company has power to buy its own securities under Section 77A of the Companies Act. It was argued that one of the requirements to purchase its own securities a Company must have free reserves. It was further argued that Section 77A(11) renders the Company or any Officer of the Company who is in default shall be punishable and as per Section 5(f) of the Companies Act a Compliance Officer becomes liable for penal action. We have perused Section 5(f) of the Companies Act which contains the definitions of the ‘Officer in Default’. As per Section 5(f), any person charged by a Board with the responsibility of complying with that provision and in this case under Section 77A of the Companies Act. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, except stating that appellant being a signatory has misled the investors no specific charge or violation is pointed out by SEBI. It is settled that when an allegation against a delinquent is likely to meet with consequences, the charge must be clear and unambiguous. The impugned order leads us to infer that the Adjudicating Officer has presumed that the Company Secretary/Compliance Officer ought to have re-examined the veracity of the certified accounts. Such a presumption is without any legal foundation and therefore the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the appellant, as Company Secretary and Compliance Officer, was liable for the understatement of outstanding loans and interest in the company's annual reports for financial years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, which led to an overstatement of free reserves and misled investors in the public announcement of the buyback of equity shares.The scope of duties and responsibilities of a Company Secretary under the Companies Act, 1956, particularly under Section 215, and under SEBI regulations, including Regulation 19(3) of the Buyback Regulations, 1998.Whether the appellant was obligated to verify the correctness and veracity of the financial statements and buyback offer documents before authenticating and signing them.The applicability of Sections 68 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956, Sections 12(a), (b), and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992, and Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003, to the appellant's conduct.The extent of liability of a Company Secretary in cases of fraudulent misstatement or omission in financial disclosures and public announcements, especially when the statutory auditors and directors are separately responsible for accounts preparation and approval.The interpretation of Regulation 19(3) of the SEBI Buyback Regulations concerning the role of the Compliance Officer in ensuring compliance with buyback regulations and redressal of investor grievances.The legal validity of holding the appellant liable for signing the public announcement for buyback without adequate free reserves and whether such act misled the investors/shareholders.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Liability of the Company Secretary for understatement of loans and misleading public announcementRelevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 68 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 regulate buyback of shares and the requirement of adequate free reserves. Section 215 of the Companies Act requires the Company Secretary to authenticate the balance sheet and profit and loss account on behalf of the Board. SEBI Act Sections 12(a), (b), and (c) and SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations prohibit fraudulent and unfair trade practices. Regulation 19(3) of the SEBI Buyback Regulations mandates appointment of a Compliance Officer to ensure compliance with buyback regulations.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Adjudicating Officer (AO) held that the appellant, as Company Secretary, failed to act diligently by authenticating financial statements that understated loans and interest, thereby overstating profits and free reserves. The AO reasoned that the appellant's role was not limited to mere attestation but included verifying the authenticity of accounts and ensuring all material facts were incorporated. The AO also held the appellant responsible for signing the public announcement for buyback without adequate free reserves, misleading investors.Key evidence and findings: The company manipulated accounts by transferring loans to an associate company at the financial year-end and bringing them back at the start of the next year, thereby understating liabilities in the annual reports. The public announcement of buyback was signed by the appellant as Company Secretary. The Board of Directors accepted responsibility for the announcement. The appellant was Compliance Officer under Regulation 19(3) of the Buyback Regulations.Application of law to facts: The AO applied Sections 68 and 77A of the Companies Act and SEBI regulations to hold the appellant liable for signing misleading documents. The AO rejected the appellant's contention that his role was ministerial and limited to authentication without verification.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the Company Secretary's role under Section 215 is ministerial, limited to authentication on behalf of the Board, and does not extend to verifying accounts or financial statements. He relied on Ministry of Law circulars, prior Tribunal decisions, and the fact that statutory auditors and directors are responsible for accounts. The appellant also argued that he was not involved in finance functions and was unaware of the loan transactions. SEBI countered that the Compliance Officer's role under Regulation 19(3) includes ensuring compliance with buyback regulations and that the appellant was obligated to verify liabilities before signing the public announcement.Conclusions: The AO found the appellant liable for failing to exercise due diligence and for misleading investors by authenticating and signing the buyback announcement without adequate free reserves.Issue 2: Scope of duties and liability of Company Secretary and Compliance OfficerRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 215 of the Companies Act, 1956; Regulation 19(3) of SEBI Buyback Regulations, 1998; SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003; judicial precedents including Bhuwneshwar Mishra v. SEBI and Bhagwati Developers v. Peerless General Finance.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant contended that his duties were ministerial, limited to authentication on behalf of the Board, and that verification of accounts was the responsibility of directors and auditors. The appellant relied on Ministry of Law circular clarifying that authentication by the Company Secretary is not personal certification but on behalf of the Board. The appellant also emphasized that SEBI did not charge the merchant banker or auditors, indicating that the responsibility for verifying accounts lies elsewhere.The AO and SEBI argued that the Compliance Officer's role under Regulation 19(3) includes ensuring compliance with buyback regulations, which entails verifying the veracity of the buyback offer document. The AO rejected the appellant's reliance on Section 215 and Ministry circulars as irrelevant to the compliance obligations under SEBI regulations.Key evidence and findings: The appellant signed the buyback public announcement and was the nominated Compliance Officer. The buyback announcement was made when loans were reflected in the books. The appellant was responsible for maintaining the register of debenture holders and was involved in board meeting assistance.Application of law to facts: The AO held that the appellant had a duty to exercise due diligence and verify the buyback offer document, including the adequacy of free reserves. The AO found that the appellant could not disclaim liability by claiming a ministerial role when he signed a document that misled investors.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument that he was not responsible for accounts or their verification was rejected as inconsistent with his role as Compliance Officer and signatory to the buyback announcement. SEBI emphasized that the appellant's failure to verify liabilities and free reserves amounted to willful default.Conclusions: The Tribunal found the AO's reasoning that the appellant should have verified the accounts to be legally unsustainable, as the Company Secretary's role under Section 215 does not entail re-auditing or verifying audited accounts. However, the Supreme Court's remand order clarified that the Compliance Officer's role under Regulation 19(3) includes ensuring compliance with buyback regulations, which the Tribunal was required to consider afresh.Issue 3: Whether the appellant misled investors by signing the buyback public announcement without adequate free reservesRelevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 68 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956; Regulation 19(3) of SEBI Buyback Regulations; SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations; judicial precedents on liability for misleading disclosures.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO held that the appellant, by signing the buyback announcement without adequate free reserves, misled investors and shareholders, influencing their decisions. The appellant's signature was on a document where the Board accepted responsibility for the information.Key evidence and findings: The company's financial statements understated loans and interest, artificially inflating free reserves. The buyback offer was at a price 234% of the market price, designed to induce investors. The appellant was the Compliance Officer and signed the announcement dated May 6, 2011.Application of law to facts: The AO applied the provisions of the Companies Act and SEBI regulations to hold the appellant liable for the misleading public announcement. SEBI argued that the appellant's failure to verify the unaudited results and free reserves was a breach of his duties.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that he was entitled to rely on the oversight of the Audit Committee, Board, auditors, and merchant bankers. He contended that the Board and auditors are responsible for certification of accounts and disclosures. SEBI countered that the appellant's role as Compliance Officer required him to ensure compliance and verify the documents he authenticated.Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the AO's presumption that the appellant should have re-examined the audited accounts was without legal foundation. The Tribunal observed that the Board had accepted responsibility for the announcement, and the appellant's role was ministerial in authentication. The Tribunal held that no specific charge or violation was pointed out against the appellant beyond his signature on the document, and the impugned order was unsustainable in law on this ground.Issue 4: Interpretation of Regulation 19(3) of SEBI Buyback Regulations and the role of Compliance OfficerRelevant legal framework: Regulation 19(3) of SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court of India, in remanding the matter, clarified that the Compliance Officer's role under Regulation 19(3) is twofold: (i) to ensure compliance with buyback regulations, and (ii) to redress investor grievances. The earlier Tribunal order had erroneously limited the Compliance Officer's role to grievance redressal only. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration in light of this interpretation.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal was required to consider whether the appellant, as Compliance Officer, discharged his duty to ensure compliance with buyback regulations, including verifying adequacy of free reserves and accuracy of disclosures.Treatment of competing arguments: SEBI argued that the appellant failed to ensure compliance and verify the buyback offer document. The appellant contended that the role was ministerial and that he relied on the Board and auditors.Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the AO's order did not clearly specify which provisions were violated by the appellant in his capacity as Compliance Officer and that the charge was vague. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous charges when imposing penalties.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The provisions of section 215 of the Companies Act, 1956 fastens a duty on the Company Secretary to authenticate the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account of the company on behalf of the board of directors. Under the circumstances, as a Company Secretary, the Noticee 6 cannot plead innocence by stating that he has merely fulfilled a statutory duty by signing the audited accounts which were prepared by the auditors and approved by the board of directors of the Company.' (Adjudicating Officer)'The Noticee 6 was performing the job of a secretary to the board of directors and it was his duty to aid and advice and assist the board in ensuring that the accounts contained all the true information before the same were approved. Further, he was not merely supposed to attest the accounts but was required to authenticate the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account of the Company, which cannot be undermined as a mere routine attestation job but has to be taken up as a serious responsible job of declaring the authenticity of the contents of the accounts and all the information contained therein.' (Adjudicating Officer)'The Board of Directors of the Company accepts responsibility for the information contained in this Announcement.' (Public announcement for buyback dated May 6, 2011)'The appellant ought to have verified if the audited accounts have contained all the assets & liabilities or any other material facts that needed to be incorporated in the accounts. ... If this reasoning is to be accepted, the appellant ought to have read, understood, re-audited the certified accounts of the Company already approved by the Board of Directors. That is not the duty of either the Company Secretary or the Compliance Officer.' (The Tribunal)'Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations expressly so stipulates [that the Compliance Officer is required] to ensure compliance with the buyback regulations. ... The Tribunal held that the role of the respondent, who was a Company Secretary, compliance officer, was limited to redressing the grievances of investors. ... The crucial point which has been missed by the Tribunal is that the compliance officer is also required to ensure compliance with the buyback regulations.' (Supreme Court of India)Core principles established:The Company Secretary's duty under Section 215 of the Companies Act is to authenticate financial statements on behalf of the Board, not to verify or audit the accounts.The Compliance Officer under Regulation 19(3) of the SEBI Buyback Regulations has a dual role: ensuring compliance with buyback regulations and redressing investor grievances.Liability for misleading disclosures requires clear and specific charges; mere signature on documents without evidence of knowledge or willful default is insufficient.The Board of Directors bears primary responsibility for the accuracy of financial statements and public announcements.The burden on a Company Secretary or Compliance Officer does not extend to re-examining or re-auditing accounts already approved by the Board and certified by auditors.Final determinations on each issue:The appellant was not liable for the understatement of loans and interest in the company's financial statements, as his role was limited to authentication on behalf of the Board, and he was not required to verify the accounts.The appellant's role as Compliance Officer includes ensuring compliance with buyback regulations, but the impugned order failed to specify clear violations or duties breached by him in this regard.The appellant's signature on the buyback public announcement did not, by itself, establish liability for misleading investors, especially since the Board accepted responsibility for the announcement.The Adjudicating Officer's finding that the appellant should have verified the audited accounts was legally unsustainable and set aside.The appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the appellant was quashed.