Skip to main content

Sebi gets back discretionary powers on penalties

By
The Finance Bill 2017 has inserted an explanation that does away with the ambiguity regarding the discretionary powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) in deciding the quantum of penalty levied against companies. This will provide relief to several companies reeling under heavy penalties post the Supreme Court’s Roofit judgment in 2015.
The SC had, in its ruling in the matter of Roofit Industries in November 2015, said that Sebi had no discretionary power under Section 15J of the SEBI Act, 1992 to reduce penalties imposed on companies. Following the judgment, penalty of crores of rupees was levied by Sebi in different matters. This led to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) remanding several matters back to Sebi and quite a few appeals being withdrawn by the appellants fearing higher penalties. 
“The inclusion of the explanation has finally settled the position and done away with the conflict in the minds of the regulator and the appellate body as to their powers. This will bring much-needed respite to capital market participants who were being subjected to heavy penalties even for trivial procedural non-compliances," said Deepika Vijay Sawhney, partner - securities law & transaction advisory, Corporate Professionals.
The relief will be for offences committed between October 2002 and September 2014, as the penal provisions of the Sebi Act were amended with effect from September 2014.
In its November 2015 ruling, the SC had observed that the formula used for the reduction of penalty by SAT in the Roofit case was not forthcoming, making the exercise arbitrary. SAT had modified the order of the adjudicating officer under Sebi and reduced the penalty payable by Roofit Industries under Section 15A of the Securities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (Sebi Act) from Rs 1 crore to Rs 60,000.
The SC bench had pointed out that penalties should not be reduced on extraneous grounds other than that mentioned under Section 15J. The factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer under Section 15J include the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made as a result of the default; the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors and the repetitive nature of the default.
Prior to this judgment, both Sebi and SAT examined the gravity of the offence as well as the conduct and financial condition of the entity before levying penalties. SAT, at times, reduced the penalty even on humanitarian grounds.
“It is a welcome move as it will bring rationality to the process of imposing penalty," said Sandeep Parekh, managing partner, Finsec Law Advisors, adding that some level of discretion is required in imposing penalty. “Imposing maximum penalty under law can lead to disproportionate penalties being levied even for minor infractions."
Interestingly, Sebi itself had filed for a review before the apex court on the Roofit judgement last year. However, during the pendency of the review petition, a two-member division bench of the SC had differed with the views in the Roofit judgement in the matter of Siddharth Chaturvedi versus Sebi.  In its order of March 2016 pertaining to this case, the bench had referred the matter to a larger three-member SC bench, creating further ambiguity regarding the imposition of penalties
The Roofit Saga
  • In its ruling in the matter of Roofit Industries in November 2015, the Supreme Court said that Sebi had no discretionary powers to decide on penalties 
  • Following the judgment, Sebi started levying flat/maximum penalties 
  • Delayed/non-filing of return or non-furnishing/delayed furnishing of information, for instance, attracted the maximum penalty of Rs 1 lakh per day
  • .Sebi subsequently asked for a review of the SC decision after being criticised for levying high penalties
  • In March 2015, in another case, a division bench of the SC differed with the Roofit judgement
  • The Bench referred the matter to a larger SC bench
  • Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) started sending several matters back to Sebi, reportedly because of maximum penalties in all cases
  • Several appellants withdrew their appeals fearing higher penalties by Sebi 
  • .An explanation in the Finance Bill 2017 has given back Sebi its discretionary powers in terms of amount of penalty to be imposed  
This will provide relief for alleged offences committed between Oct 2002 and Sep 2014
Business Standard New Delhi,29th March 2017

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RBI deputy governor cautions fintech platform lenders on privacy concerns during loan recovery

By
  India's digital lending infrastructure has made the loan sanctioning system online. Yet, loan recovery still needs a “feet on the street” approach, Swaminathan J, deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, said at a media event on Tuesday, September 2, according to news agency ANI.According to the ANI report, the deputy governor flagged that fintech operators in the digital lending segment are giving out loans to customers with poor credit profiles and later using aggressive recovery tactics.“While loan sanctioning and disbursement have become increasingly digital, effective collection and recovery still require a 'feet on the street' and empathetic approach. Many fintech platforms operate on a business model that involves extending small-value loans to customers often with poor credit profiles,” Swaminathan J said.   Fintech platforms' business models The central bank deputy governor highlighted that many fintech platforms' business models involve providing sm
Post a Comment
Read more

Credit card spending growth declines on RBI gaze, stress build-up

By
  Credit card spends have further slowed down to 16.6 per cent in the current financial year (FY25), following the Reserve Bank of India’s tightening of unsecured lending norms and rising delinquencies, and increased stress in the portfolio.Typically, during the festival season (September–December), credit card spends peak as several credit card-issuing banks offer discounts and cashbacks on e-commerce and other platforms. This is a reversal of trend in the past three financial years stretching to FY21 due to RBI’s restrictions.In the previous financial year (FY24), credit card spends rose by 27.8 per cent, but were low compared to FY23 which surged by 47.5 per cent. In FY22, the spending increased 54.1 per cent, according to data compiled by Macquarie Research.ICICI Bank recorded 4.4 per cent gross credit losses in its FY24 credit card portfolio as against 3.2 per cent year-on-year. SBI Cards’ credit losses in the segment stood at 7.4 per cent in FY24 and 6.2 per cent in FY23, the rep
Post a Comment
Read more

India can't rely on wealthy to drive growth: Ex-RBI Dy Guv Viral Acharya

By
  India can’t rely on wealthy individuals to drive growth and expect the overall economy to improve, Viral Acharya, former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said on Monday.Acharya, who is the C V Starr Professor of Economics in the Department of Finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business (NYU-Stern), said after the Covid-19 pandemic, rural consumption and investments have weakened.We can’t be pumping our growth through the rich and expect that the economy as a whole will do better,” he said while speaking at an event organised by Elara Capital here.f there has to be a trickle-down, it should have actually happened by now,” Acharya said, adding that when the rich keep getting wealthier and wealthier, they have a savings problem.   “The bank account keeps getting bigger, hence they look for financial assets to invest in. India is closed, so our money can't go outside India that easily. So, it has to chase the limited financial assets in the country and
Post a Comment
Read more