IBC Simplified – Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v SEBI

  June 23, 2021

A summary of the judgment by the Securities Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v SEBI ~ By Sara Jain

Background:

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 15A(b) and 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992. Under the same order, it provided for the penalty to be paid within 45 days from the receipt of the order, failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated against the appellant.

Facts:

  1. The appellant is a housing finance company undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process. The moratorium under Section 14 came into force on November 29, 2019.
  2. However, a month later, on December 24, 2019, SEBI issued a show cause notice to the appellant demanding an explanation as to why a penalty should not be imposed on it for non-compliance of SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debenture Securities) Regulations, 2008 read with provisions of Companies (Share Capital and Debenture) Rules, 2014 and SEBI LODR Regulations.
  3. The appellant replied to the show cause notice stating that no proceedings could be initiated against it during the moratorium period in accordance with Section 14 of the IBC, 2016.
  4. Nevertheless, a penalty was imposed by SEBI, observing that Section 14 could not prevent it from determining the appellant’s liability. In other words, it stated that Section 14 would be applicable only to the enforcement and/or recovery of the determined liability and NOT on proceedings entered into for determining the liability.

Issue:

Whether proceedings for determining liability for an offence can be initiated during the moratorium period under Section 14?

Judgment:

  1. On analysis of Section 14 and various precedents, the Securities Appellate Tribunal held that SEBI did not have any jurisdiction to institute any proceedings against the appellant during the moratorium period.
  2. It further opined that the word ‘proceedings’ under Section 14(1) had to be given an expansive meaning, and thus, the institution of any proceedings was prohibited during the moratorium period.
  3. Relying on the unambiguous language adopted in Section 14, it was held that the show cause notice, SEBI order, and penalty imposed therein were to be quashed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

“In adherence to the rules and regulations of Bar Council of India, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Institute of Cost Accountants of India and any other professional bodies (whether mentioned or not herein), this website has been designed only for the purposes of circulation and exchange of information, and not for advertising.
Your use of ibc16.com’s services are completely at your own risk. Readers and subscribers should seek proper advice from an expert professional before acting on the information mentioned herein. The content on this website is general information and none of the information contained on the website is in the nature of a legal opinion, or otherwise amounts to any legal advice. The user is requested to use their judgment, and exchange of any such information shall be solely at the user’s risk.
ibc16.com does not take responsibility for the actions of any member registered on the site, and is not accountable for any decision taken by the reader based on information/commitment provided by the registered member(s). By clicking ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided on the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation, and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.”