Court :
Supreme Court of India
Brief :
PENALTIES AND ADJUDICATION PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH INFORMATION, RETURN, ETC. SECTION 15A
Citation :
Civil Appeal No(s).11311 of 2013
Adjudicating Officer, SEBI (Appellant) vs. Bhavesh Pabari (Respondent)
Supreme Court Civil Appeal No(s).11311 of 2013
Dated 28.02.2019
If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder,-
(a) to furnish any document, return or report to the Board, fails to furnish the same, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(b) to file any return or furnish any information, books or other documents within the time specified therefor in the regulations, fails to file return or furnish the same within thetime specified therefor in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(c) to maintain books of account or records, fails to maintain the same, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees.
If any person, who is registered as an intermediary and is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder to enter into an agreement with his client, fails to enter into such agreement, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees.
If any listed company or any person who is registered as an intermediary, after having been called upon by the Board in writing, to redress the grievances of investors, fails to redress such grievances within the time specified by the Board, such company or intermediary shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees.
If any person, who is-
(a) required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder to obtain a certificate of registration from the Board for sponsoring or carrying on any collective investment scheme, including mutual funds, sponsors or carries on any collective investment scheme, including mutual funds, without obtaining such certificate of registration, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which he sponsors or carries on any such collective investment scheme including mutual funds subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(b) registered with the Board as a collective investment scheme, including mutual funds, for sponsoring or carrying on any investment scheme, fails to comply with the terms and conditions of certificate of registration, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(c) registered with the Board as a collective investment scheme, including mutual funds, fails to make an application for listing of its schemes as provided for in the regulations governing such listing, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(d) registered as a collective investment scheme, including mutual funds, fails to despatch unit certificates of any scheme in the manner provided in the regulation governing such despatch, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(e) registered as a collective investment scheme, including mutual funds, fails to refund the application monies paid by the investors within the period specified in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(f) registered as a collective investment scheme, including mutual funds, fails to invest money collected by such collective investment schemes in the manner or within the period specified in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees.
Where any asset management company of a mutual fund registered under this Act, fails to comply with any of the regulations providing for restrictions on the activities of the asset management companies, such asset management company shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees.
If any person, who is registered as a stock broker under this Act,-
(a) fails to issue contract notes in the form and manner specified by the stock exchange of which such broker is a member, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to] for which the contract note was required to be issued by that broker;
(b) fails to deliver any security or fails to make payment of the amount due to the investor in the manner within the period specified in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which he sponsors or carries on any such collective investment scheme including mutual funds subject to a maximum of one crore rupees;
(c) charges an amount of brokerage which is in excess of the brokerage specified in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty 80[which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to five times the amount of brokerage]] charged in excess of the specified brokerage, whichever is higher.
If any insider who,-
(i) either on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, deals in securities of a body corporate listed on any stock exchange on the basis of any unpublished price-sensitive information; or
(ii) communicates any unpublished price-sensitive information to any person, with or without his request for such information except as required in the ordinary course of business or under any law; or
(iii) counsels, or procures for any other person to deal in any securities of any body corporate on the basis of unpublished price-sensitive information, shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty-five crore rupees or three times the amount of profits made out of insider trading, whichever is higher.
If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder, fails to,-
(i) disclose the aggregate of his shareholding in the body corporate before he acquires any shares of that body corporate; or
(ii) make a public announcement to acquire shares at a minimum price; or
(iii) make a public offer by sending letter of offer to the shareholders of the concerned company; or
(iv) (iv) make payment of consideration to the shareholders who sold their shares pursuant to letter of offer, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty-five crore rupees or three times the amount of profits made out of such failure, whichever is higher.
If any person indulges in fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities, he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than five lakh rupees but which may extendto twenty-five crore rupees or three times the amount of profits made out of such practices, whichever is higher.
Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this Act, the rules or the regulations made or directions issued by the Board thereunder for which no separate penalty has been provided, shall be 86[liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to one crore rupees.
1. Two primary questions, in a way interconnected, have been referred by the Referral judgment and order dated 14th March 2016 passed in Siddharth Chaturvedi Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2016) 12 SCC 119.
2. The questions referred can be enumerated and summarized as follows:
(i) Whether the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15J of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI Act") are exhaustive to govern the discretion in the Adjudicating Officer to decide on the quantum of penalty or the said conditions are merely illustrative?
(ii) Whether the power and discretion vested by Section 15J of the SEBI Act to decide on the quantum of penalty, regardless of the manner in which the first question is answered, stands eclipsed by the penalty provisions contained in Section 15A to Section 15HA of the SEBI Act?
For the purposes of the present reference, we may proceed to consider the provisions contained in Chapter VIA of the SEBI Act. Sections 15A to 15HA are the penalty provisions whereas Section 15I deal with the power of adjudication and Section 15J enumerates the "factors to be taken into account by the Adjudicating Officer" while adjudging the quantum of penalty.
So far as the second question is concerned, if the penalty provisions are to be understood as not admitting of any exception or discretion and the penalty as prescribed in Section 15A to Section 15HA of the SEBI Act is to be mandatorily imposed in case of default/ failure, Section 15J of the SEBI Act would stand obliterated and eclipsed.
Hence, the question referred. Sections 15A(a) to 15HA have to be read along with Section 15J in a manner to avoid any inconsistency or repugnancy. We must avoid conflict and head on clash and construe the said provisions harmoniously. Provision of one section cannot be used to nullify and obtrude another unless it is impossible to reconcile the two provisions.
The explanation to Section 15 J of the SEBI Act added by Act No.7 of 2017, quoted above, has clarified and vested in the Adjudicating Officer a discretion under Section 15J on the quantum of penalty to be imposed while adjudicating defaults under Sections 15A to 15HA.
Explanation to Section 15J was introduced/added in 2017 for the removal of doubts created as a result of pronouncement in M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. case (supra).
We are in agreement with the reasoning given in reference order dated 14th March 2016 that M/s Roofit Industries Ltd. had erroneously and wrongly held that Section 15J would not be applicable after Section 15 A(a) was amended with effect from 29th October 2002 till 7th September 2014 when Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act was again amended. It is beyond any doubt that the second referred question stands fully answered by clarification through the medium of enacting the Explanation to Section 15J vide Act No.7 to 2017, which also states that the Adjudicating Officer shall always have deemed to have exercised and applied the provision.
We, therefore, deem it appropriate to hold that the provisions of Section 15J were never eclipsed and had continued to apply in terms thereof to the defaults under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.
Reference Order in Siddharth Chaturvedi &Ors. (supra) on the said aspect has observed that Section 15A(a) could apply even to technical defaults of small amounts and, therefore, prescription of minimum mandatory penalty of Rs.1 lakh per day subject to maximum of Rs.1 crore, would make the Section completely disproportionate and arbitrary so as to invade and violate fundamental rights. Insertion of the Explanation would reflect that the legislative intent, in spite of the use of the expression "whichever is less" in Section 15A(a) as it existed during the period 29th October 2002 till 7th September 2014, was not to curtail the discretion of the Adjudicating Officer by prescribing a minimum mandatory penalty of not less than Rs. 1 lakh per day till compliance was made, notwithstanding the fact that the default was technical, no loss was caused to the investor(s) and no disproportionate gain or unfair advantage was made.
The legislative intent is also clear as Section 15A(a) was amended by the Amendment Act No.27 of 2014 to state that the penalty could extend to Rs. 1 lakh for each day during which the failure continues subject to a maximum penalty of Rs. 1 crore. This amendment in 2014 was not retrospective and therefore, clarificatory and removal of doubt Explanation to Section 15J was added by the Act No. 7 of 2017.
Normally the expression "whichever is less" would connote absence of discretion by prescribing the minimum mandatory penalty, but in the context of Section 15A(a) as it was between 29th October,2002 till 7th September, 2014, read along with Explanation to Section 15J added by Act No.7 of 2017, we would hold the legislative intent was not to prescribe minimum mandatory penalty of Rs.1 lakh per day during which the default and failure had continued.
We would prefer read and interpret Section 15A(a) as it was between 25th October, 2002 and 7th September, 2014 in line with the Amendment Act 27 of 2014 as giving discretion to the Adjudicating Officer to impose minimum penalty of Rs.1 lakh subject to maximum penalty of Rs.1 crore, keeping in view the period of default as well as aggravating and mitigating circumstances including those specified in Section 15J of the SEBI Act.
This will require us to consider the first question referred. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by the rival parties, (both parties have actually canvassed for a wider and more expansive interpretation of Section 15J), we are inclined to take the view that the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15J are illustrative in nature and have to be taken into account whenever such circumstances exist. But this is not to say that there can be no other circumstance(s) beyond those enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15J that the Adjudicating Officer is precluded in law from considering while deciding on the quantum of penalty to be imposed.
A narrow view would be in direct conflict with the provisions of Section 15I (2) of the SEBI Act which vests jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Officer, who is empowered on completion of the inquiry to impose "such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections." Therefore, to understand the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15J to be exhaustive and admitting of no exception or vesting any discretion in the Adjudicating Officer would be virtually to admit/ concede that in adjudications involving penalties under Sections 15 A, 15B and 15C, Section 15J will have no application. Such a result could not have been intended by the legislature. We, therefore, hold and take the view that conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15 J are not exhaustive and in the given facts of a case, there can be circumstances beyond those enumerated by clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15J which can be taken note of by the Adjudicating Officer while determining the quantum of penalty. There is a distinction between a continuing offence and a repeat offence. The continuing offence is a one which is of a continuous nature as distinguished from one which is committed once and for all.
The term "continuing offence" was explained and elucidated by giving several illustrations in State of Bihar vs. Deokaran Nenshi &Ors. (1972) 2 SCC 890.
In case of continuing offence, the liability continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion when disobedience or noncompliance occurs and reoccurs, there is an offence committed. Continuing offence constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion it occurs.
In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, continuing offence or default in service law was explained as a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. A recurring or successive wrong, on the other hand, are those which occur periodically with each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action.
We have made reference to this legal position in view of clause (c) of Section 15J of the SEBI Act which refers to repetitive nature of default and not a continuing default.
The word "repetitive" as used therein would refer to a recurring or successive default. This factum has to be taken into consideration while deciding upon the quantum of penalty. This dictum, however, does not mean that factum of continuing default is not a relevant factor, as we have held that clauses (a) to (c) in Section 15J of the SEBI Act are merely illustrative and are not the only grounds/factors which can be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of penalty.
"Live class on Python for Financial Analysis: Unlocking Efficiency in Accounting and Finance"
CAclubindia
