Two investment advisers violated Regulation 13(b) by conducting unregistered advisory activities through partnership firms without SEBI disclosure
SEBI Board found two investment advisers violated Regulation 13(b) of IA Regulations and Code of Conduct by conducting unregistered investment advisory activities through six partnership firms without disclosing this to SEBI during registration. The noticees failed to inform SEBI about these activities, constituting suppression of facts and violation of disclosure requirements. While the Designated Authority recommended a three-year restraint from new assignments, SEBI Board imposed a six-month restraint considering the noticees were already debarred from securities market and penalized under a separate order.
Issues Presented and ConsideredThe core legal questions considered in the judgment are:
- Whether the Noticees, registered as individual Investment Advisers under SEBI (Investment Advisors) Regulations, 2013 ("IA Regulations"), violated Regulation 13(b) of the IA Regulations and Clause 1 of the Code of Conduct for Investment Advisers read with Regulation 15(9) of the IA Regulations by providing investment advisory services through unregistered partnership firms.
- Whether the Noticees failed to disclose material information regarding their involvement in unregistered partnership firms engaged in investment advisory activities at the time of their SEBI registration and subsequently, thereby violating their obligation to inform SEBI under Regulation 13(b) of the IA Regulations.
- Whether the Noticees acted honestly, fairly, and in the best interests of their clients, as mandated by the Code of Conduct under the IA Regulations.
- Whether the Designated Authority's (DA) recommendation to restrain the Noticees from taking any new assignment or contract for a period of three years is appropriate and proportionate in light of the violations and the facts of the case.
- Whether the Noticees are jointly and severally liable for the activities of the partnership firms under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, despite their differing stakes and roles.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
Issue 1: Violation of IA Regulations by Providing Advisory Services through Unregistered Partnership Firms
Legal Framework and Precedents: The IA Regulations distinguish between categories of applicants for registration as Investment Advisers - individuals and non-individuals (including partnership firms). Registration is category-specific, and providing advisory services under a category for which registration is not obtained constitutes unregistered activity. Regulation 13(b) requires an investment adviser to inform SEBI if any previously submitted information is false or misleading or if there is any material change. Clause 1 of the Code of Conduct mandates honesty, fairness, and acting in clients' best interests.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the Noticees, though individually registered, were co-partners in six partnership firms that provided investment advisory services without SEBI registration. The firms collected fees totaling approximately Rs. 8.10 crore from over 4,500 clients. The Court rejected Noticee No. 1's claim of bonafide belief that no separate registration was required for partnership firms, emphasizing that the IA Regulations clearly differentiate between categories and require separate registration. Ignorance or mistaken belief cannot excuse non-compliance.
Key Evidence and Findings: Inspection revealed that the partnership firms were operational before the Noticees' individual registrations and actively engaged in advisory activities, collecting substantial fees. Archive data and fee collection through payment gateways substantiated these activities. The Noticees had failed to declare these activities at the time of individual registration.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Regulation 13(b) and the Code of Conduct to find that the Noticees violated their obligation to inform SEBI about their unregistered advisory activities through partnership firms. The provision of advisory services by unregistered entities constituted a breach of the IA Regulations.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: Noticee No. 1 argued that he held only a minor capital stake and did not control the firms, that he was following compliance norms like KYC and risk profiling, and that he voluntarily disclosed the firms' existence and refunded dissatisfied clients. The Court found these mitigating factors insufficient to absolve liability. The claim that advisory services were not provided without SEBI registration was rejected due to the clear evidence of unregistered activities.
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Noticees violated Regulation 13(b) and Clause 1 of the Code of Conduct read with Regulation 15(9) by providing unregistered investment advisory services through partnership firms and failing to disclose material information.
Issue 2: Liability of Noticees as Partners under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act defines partnership as a relation between persons sharing profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Section 25 provides that every partner is jointly and severally liable for acts of the firm done while he is a partner. The Supreme Court has held that a firm is not a separate legal entity distinct from its partners.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the contrasting contentions of the Noticees attempting to shift blame. It clarified that irrespective of individual stakes or roles, both Noticees are jointly and severally liable for the partnership firms' acts. The capital contribution is distinct from profit-sharing and control; liability arises from partnership status.
Key Evidence and Findings: Partnership deeds and profit-sharing ratios were examined. Noticee No. 1's minor capital stake did not exempt him from liability. Noticee No. 2's submissions confirmed Noticee No. 1's involvement in overseeing firm operations.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the Partnership Act provisions to hold both Noticees liable for the unregistered activities of the partnership firms.
Conclusion: Both Noticees are jointly and severally liable for the violations committed by the partnership firms.
Issue 3: Appropriateness of the DA's Recommendation for Restraint
Legal Framework: Regulation 27(iii) of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 empowers the authority to restrain intermediaries from taking up new assignments or contracts for a specified period. The Court must consider proportionality and facts of the case.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The DA recommended a three-year restraint on the Noticees from taking new assignments. However, the Court noted that SEBI had already passed an earlier order dated November 28, 2023, debarred the Noticees from the securities market for two years, imposed penalties, and directed refunds. Considering these prior sanctions, the Court found the DA's recommendation disproportionate.
Key Evidence and Findings: The prior SEBI order and ongoing penalties were significant. Noticee No. 1 had challenged the order before the Securities Appellate Tribunal but without obtaining a stay. Noticee No. 2 had not challenged the order, which attained finality.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court balanced the need for deterrence with fairness, concluding that a six-month restraint would be adequate and just under the circumstances.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: Noticee No. 1's challenge of SEBI's prior order was noted but not sufficient to alter the Court's view on proportionality. Noticee No. 2's non-participation was considered in the final decision.
Conclusion: The Court modified the DA's recommendation, restraining the Noticees from taking any new assignment or contract for six months instead of three years.
Significant Holdings
"An applicant, who has been granted registration under a specific category, can provide its services under that category only, and in case, any such applicant provides the services under any other category for which it does not hold the registration, the same would be considered as unregistered activity and in contravention of the IA Regulations."
"It is a well-established principle that ignorance of law is not a valid defense. The Noticee, irrespective of any assumption, had the legal obligation to comply with the applicable statutory requirements with respect to registration."
"Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner."
"Considering that the Noticees have already been debarred from the securities market and penalized for their conduct, restraining the Noticees from taking up any new assignment or contract for a period of 3 (Three) years as recommended by the DA would be disproportionate, and instead, a restraint of six months would be commensurate and would meet the ends of justice."
Core Principles Established:
- Registration under IA Regulations is category-specific; providing services outside the registered category is unregistered activity.
- An investment adviser must disclose any false or misleading information or material changes to SEBI promptly.
- Partners in a partnership firm are jointly and severally liable for the firm's acts, regardless of individual capital contributions or control.
- Mitigating factors such as voluntary disclosure or refunds do not absolve liability but may be considered in determining sanctions.
- Sanctions imposed must be proportionate, taking into account prior penalties and the overall facts and circumstances.
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
- The Noticees violated Regulation 13(b) of the IA Regulations and Clause 1 of the Code of Conduct read with Regulation 15(9) by providing unregistered investment advisory services through partnership firms and failing to disclose material information.
- Both Noticees are jointly and severally liable for the violations committed by the partnership firms under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
- The DA's recommendation for a three-year restraint was modified to a six-month restraint, considering prior SEBI orders and proportionality.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
