TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered with the Registrar of Companies, Odisha. (ii) Mr. Prashanta Kumar Dash is the promoter and Managing Director of Seashore Securities Limited. The petitioner was employed with M/s. NAD Pvt. Ltd. at its Raipur Head Office since the year 2007. (iii) The petitioner was appointed as a Director of Seashore Securities Limited on 29.10.2008. (iv) The petitioner resigned from the post of Director on 03.02.2012. The said resignation was approved in the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting held on 05.03.2012 and was filed before the Registrar of Companies, Cuttack on 02.04.2012. (v) An interim order bearing No. WTM/PS/23/ERO/BLO/JULY/2014 dated 23.07.2014 was passed by Opposite Party No. 1, namely the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and was served upon the petitioner on 24.08.2014. (vi) Upon receipt of the said interim order, the petitioner submitted his objections, which were received by Opposite Party No. 1 on 04.09.2014. (vii) Thereafter, another order bearing No. WTM/PS/84/ERO/BLO/MAR/2015 dated 18.03.2015 was passed by Opposite Party No. 1. (viii) Subsequently, Opposite Party No. 1 passed a final order bearing No. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... NAD Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, Chhattisgarh from 09.01.2007 till March, 2013, and had no role whatsoever in the affairs or financial decisions of Seashore Securities Limited. (iv) The petitioner contended that the final order dated 24.09.2018 passed by Opposite Party No. 1 does not contain any specific, cogent or legally sustainable allegations establishing his involvement in the alleged violations. (v) It was submitted that mere designation as a Director cannot fasten liability in the absence of specific averments demonstrating how and in what manner the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. In order to buttress this argument, the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal (2010) 3 SCC 330. and State of NCT of Delhi through Prosecuting Officer, Insecticides, Government of NCT, Delhi v. Rajiv Khurana (2010) 11 SCC 469. (vi) The petitioner submitted that in the absence of any specific role attributed to him in the alleged fraudulent issuance of Redeemable Preference Shares, the attachment of his personal bank accounts as well as Demat ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y alternative remedy exists. (vi) Learned counsel submitted that under Sections 11B and 28A of the SEBI Act, 1992, Opposite Party No. 1 is empowered to issue directions and to recover amounts due by adopting measures including attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties, attachment of bank accounts, arrest and detention, and appointment of a receiver, and that for this purpose the provisions of Sections 220 to 227, 228A, 229 and 232 and the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 are applicable. IV. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner has assailed the final order dated 24.09.2018 passed by Opposite Party No. 1, namely the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and the consequential attachment notices dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 28A of the SEBI Act, 1992, primarily on the ground that the attachment of his personal bank accounts as well as Demat and trading accounts is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The foundation of the petitioner's challenge res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lective conduct of the management, particularly where the alleged violation arises out of a course of action undertaken by the company and its directors acting in concert. 11. The correctness or adequacy of the findings recorded by the regulatory authority, the extent of individual involvement of a particular director, and the question whether such involvement was merely nominal or substantive are matters that would necessarily require an examination of facts, appreciation of evidence and scrutiny of the conclusions drawn by the regulator. Such an exercise would entail a detailed factual enquiry, which this Court does not ordinarily undertake in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a statutory regulator acting within the bounds of its jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only where the impugned action is shown to be perverse, wholly unsupported by material on record, vitiated by manifest arbitrariness, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. On a careful reading of the impugned orders, th....