2025 (11) TMI 1351 - AT - SEBI

No Violation of Regulation 33(3) SEBI LODR; Fines Quashed and Trading Suspension on Appellant's Shares Lifted

Amit Securities Limited Versus BSE Ltd., Mumbai, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai

The AT held that Regulation 33(3) of SEBI LODR applies to listed entities having subsidiaries for preparation and submission of quarterly consolidated ... Listing and disclosure requirement - Delayed submission of quarterly consolidated financial statement - non-compliance with Regulation 33 of SEBI LODR Regulations - Imposition of a fine - Trading and investing in equity of domestic companies - applicability of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Circulars issued by SEBI - preliminary objections - seeking to restore the suspension from trading of its accounts and de-freezing of demat accounts of promoter - benefit of doubt - whether a Company without subsidiary but having Associates / JV is required to submit consolidated financial statements on a quarterly basis to the exchange ? HELD THAT:- We note that the Committee of BSE has waived off the fines for the two quarters (March and June 2020) which were the very basis for suspension of trading and freezing of promoter’s accounts. Thus, there is no merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent No. 1. Section 129 of Companies Act read along with Schedule III is specific to preparation of annual financial statement. Regulation 33(3) of LODR Regulations lays down the requirement of preparation of quarterly consolidated financial statements and these are to be prepared by a listed entity, which has a subsidiary. In case the listed entity prepares quarterly consolidated financial statement, then the accounts of its associates/joint ventures (if any) will also have to be consolidated. There is ambiguity in the interpretation made by BSE that the Appellant has violated Regulation 33(3) of LODR Regulations by not submitting quarterly consolidated financial results for quarters ended September and December, 2019. We note with concern that though SEBI was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in this appeal vide our order, SEBI did not file any reply or written submission and remained a mute spectator on an issue which has major ramifications. In our view, the Appellant should be given benefit of doubt with regard to this ambiguous position. Accordingly, we hold that there is no violation of Regulation 33(3) of LODR Regulations by the Appellant and the fines imposed have no basis. Appeal is allowed - Suspension of trading in Appellant’s scrip may be lifted and the promoter’s accounts be de-freezed with immediate effect. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether Regulation 33(3) of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 mandates quarterly consolidated financial results where the listed entity has associates/joint ventures but does not have any subsidiary. 2. Whether a stock exchange circular (purporting to require consolidation of subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures for quarterly/year-to-date results) and an informal guidance of the regulator can impose obligations or penalties beyond the plain language of Regulation 33(3) and the Companies Act/Schedule III formats. 3. Whether levying fines and consequent enforcement actions (freezing of promoters' demat accounts and suspension of trading) under SEBI/SOP circulars was justified for non-submission of consolidated quarterly results for quarters where the listed entity had no subsidiary but had associates/JVs. 4. Whether the appellate tribunal may grant relief (set aside fines, lift suspension and de-freeze accounts) where there is an ambiguity in the regulatory prescription and the entity was given opportunities to present its case to the exchange's review committee. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Applicability of Regulation 33(3) to entities with associates/JVs but no subsidiaries Legal framework: Regulation 33(3) requires submission of quarterly and year-to-date standalone results and, where the listed entity has subsidiaries, additionally consolidated quarterly/year-to-date financial results. Schedule III (format) under the Companies Act prescribes consolidation requirements and states that 'all subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures' will be covered under consolidated financial statements. Section 129 of the Companies Act governs preparation of annual consolidated financial statements where a company has subsidiaries or associates. Precedent Treatment: The exchange relied on an informal regulatory guidance and its circular interpreting Regulation 33(3) to require consolidation (including associates/JVs) for quarterly submissions from quarter ending September 30, 2019. The tribunal examined those sources and the statutory text; no binding judicial precedent overruling that interpretation was invoked. Interpretation and reasoning: The plain text of Regulation 33(3)(b) conditions the mandatory submission of quarterly consolidated results on the listed entity having subsidiaries. Schedule III and Section 129 relate primarily to annual consolidated financial statements; their references to associates/JVs operate within the annual-reporting context. Thus, Regulation 33(3) expressly triggers the quarterly consolidation obligation where a listed entity 'has subsidiaries.' If a listed entity prepares quarterly consolidated accounts, that consolidation would necessarily include associates/JVs under Schedule III, but Regulation 33(3) does not by its text independently expand the quarterly consolidation requirement to entities that only have associates/JVs and no subsidiaries. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Regulation 33(3) requires quarterly consolidated filings only where the listed entity has subsidiaries; inclusion of associates/JVs in any consolidated quarterly statements flows from Schedule III where consolidated statements are prepared. Obiter - observations on the broader policy desirability of uniform quarterly consolidation and potential regulatory clarification. Conclusion: A listed entity without subsidiaries but with associates/JVs is not, on the plain text of Regulation 33(3), mandatorily obliged to submit quarterly consolidated financial results; therefore non-filing of such quarterly consolidated results (when no subsidiary exists) does not, per that provision alone, constitute a breach. Issue 2: Legal status of exchange circular and regulator's informal guidance versus statutory/regulatory text Legal framework: Regulatory hierarchy demands that statutory/regulatory provisions prevail over non-binding instruments. SEBI informal guidance scheme expressly provides that such letters are not to be construed as conclusive determinations of law or fact. Exchange circulars derive force by virtue of listing agreements/undertakings but cannot override the clear statutory/regulatory mandate. Precedent Treatment: The tribunal treated the exchange circular and the informal guidance as interpretative or clarificatory instruments but not as authoritative to alter the unambiguous statutory/regulatory text. No authority was found that an exchange circular can expand a mandatory obligation beyond Regulation 33(3) without a concomitant amendment or clear regulator direction. Interpretation and reasoning: The September 26, 2019 exchange circular relied on an informal guidance to state that quarterly consolidated results (including associates/JVs) were mandatory from quarter ending September 30, 2019. However, the tribunal emphasized that informal guidance is not binding and that the plain language of Regulation 33(3) governs the mandatory scope of quarterly consolidation. The tribunal found ambiguity in the exchange's interpretation and noted that SEBI had not issued a binding clarification on the specific point. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Exchange circulars and informal guidance cannot be applied to impose obligations inconsistent with the clear wording of Regulation 33(3). Obiter - remarks urging the regulator to clarify the position moving forward. Conclusion: The exchange circular and informal guidance do not alter the statutory/regulatory requirement; reliance on them to penalize an entity where Regulation 33(3) does not clearly apply is unsustainable. Issue 3: Validity of fines and consequential enforcement (freezing demat accounts and suspension of trading) under SOP/LODR when non-compliance basis is ambiguous Legal framework: SEBI/SOP circulars prescribe fines for violations of LODR provisions. Listing undertakings bind entities to exchange rules and circulars. Penal provisions must be construed strictly; imposition of penalties requires a clear breach of the applicable regulatory mandate. Precedent Treatment: The tribunal took into account that the exchange levied fines under SOP for alleged non-compliance and later froze accounts and suspended trading when fines were unpaid and non-compliance continued for consecutive quarters. The tribunal noted the exchange's subsequent partial waivers and that waiver decisions related to the same compliance matrix. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the tribunal's conclusion that Regulation 33(3) did not unambiguously require quarterly consolidation in the absence of subsidiaries, the basis for levying fines for non-filing of consolidated quarterly results for the quarters in question was ambiguous. Where the regulatory prescription is ambiguous and the regulator/exchange has not provided clear binding clarification, the benefit of doubt goes to the entity. Enforcement steps that flow from the contested fines (freezing and suspension) therefore lacked proper foundation in respect of the quarters affected by the ambiguity. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Fines and enforcement actions premised on an ambiguous interpretation of regulatory obligations cannot be sustained; ambiguity in penal/regulatory obligations should be resolved in favour of the regulated entity. Obiter - commentary on procedural avenues for restoration and compliance processes. Conclusion: Fines imposed and consequent freezing/suspension that rest on the ambiguous obligation to submit consolidated quarterly results (where no subsidiary exists) are without basis and must be set aside in relation to those specific quarters. Issue 4: Remedies and interlocutory relief where regulator/exchange proceedings constituted a continuous process and entity was afforded opportunities before the review committee Legal framework: Appellate powers permit setting aside orders and granting consequential relief where underlying determination is found to be without basis. Restoration of trading and de-freezing of accounts are appropriate where the grounds for suspension/freeze are vacated. Precedent Treatment: The tribunal treated the sequence of events (waiver applications, review committee hearings, partial waivers) as part of a continuous process; the entity had opportunities to be heard before the exchange committee. Interpretation and reasoning: Because the fines and enforcement were causally linked to alleged non-compliance in respect of quarters where the legal obligation was ambiguous, and because the exchange had considered the matter (granting partial waivers), the tribunal concluded it was appropriate to set aside the impugned communication, lift suspension and de-freeze promoters' accounts. The tribunal also directed the regulator to examine and clarify the legal position prospectively regarding consolidation requirements for entities with only associates/JVs. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where regulatory enforcement is predicated on an ambiguous obligation, appellate relief including setting aside fines and restoring trading/de-freezing accounts is warranted. Obiter - recommendation that the regulator issue a clarification on the consolidation requirement for listed entities having only associates/JVs. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned communication imposing the outstanding fine, ordered lifting of suspension and de-freezing of promoter accounts, and directed the regulator to examine and clarify whether quarterly consolidation is required for entities having only associates/JVs.