SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OFversusUDAYANT MALHOUTRA

                         [2020] 14 S.C.R. 327                           327


      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA                            A
                                 v.
                    UDAYANT MALHOUTRA
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 2981-2982 of 2020)
                        NOVEMBER 18, 2020                               B
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
      INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
       Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 – s.19 r/w.
ss.11(1), 11(4)(d), 11(4A), 11(5) and 11B – SEBI (Prohibition of
Insider Trading) Regulations 2015 – regn.10 – It was alleged that       C
respondent-CEO and Managing Director of the company had sold
51,000 shares of the company on 24.10.2016 having inside
knowledge of price sensitive information, namely, the unaudited
financial results of the quarter ending on 30.09.2016 – Later, the
price of the scrips of the company sustained a drastic reduction –      D
The allegation against the respondent was that being in possession
of price sensitive information, he had sold the shares and had, thus,
made a notional gain or averted a notional loss – The matter became
subject of investigation in 2017 and the respondent was called for
information on 28.11.2019 – The Whole Time Member passed an
ex-parte order on 15.06.2020 – However, the Tribunal held that it       E
does not find any case of extreme urgency which warranted to pass
an ex-parte interim order only on arriving at the prima-facie case
that the respondent was an insider as defined in the Regulations,
2015 without considering the balance of convenience or irreparable
injury – Held: On the facts, the Tribunal was correct in coming to      F
the conclusion that since the investigation was pending since 2017
and information had been supplied on 28.11.2019, there was no
urgency for passing an ex-parte interim order of the nature that
was issued by the Whole Time Member – It was, in this background,
that the Tribunal, while affirming the power of SEBI to pass an ex
parte interim order in appropriate cases, observed that this should     G
be exercised “only in extreme urgent matters” – Thus, there is no
reason to take a view at variance with the conclusion of the Tribunal
on the facts of the case – However, the interpretation which has
been placed by the Tribunal on the powers of SEBI shall not be
                                                                        H
                                327
328             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 14 S.C.R.


A     cited as a precedent in any other case – Accordingly, appeals are
      disposed of.
             North End Foods Marketing Pvt Ltd v Securities and
             Exchange Board of India (Appeal 80 of 2019 decided
             on 12.03.2019 by Securities Appellate Tribunal) –
B            referred to.
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2981-
      82 of 2020
             From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2020 of the Securities
      Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 145 of 2020
C            Tushar Mehta, SG, Mahfooz A Nazki, Avinash Tripathi, Advs. for
      the Appellant.
             Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv., Sonal Jain, Ishkaran Singh, Advs. for the
      Respondent.
             The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
D                                  JUDGMENT
             1. These statutory appeals have been instituted by the Securities
      and Exchange Board of India1 under Section 15Z of the Securities and
      Exchange Board of India Act 19922. The appeals arise out of the orders
      passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal 3 on 27 June 2020 and 23 July
E     2020. The Tribunal set aside an interim order dated 15 June 2020 passed
      by the Whole Time Member of SEBI under Section 19 read with Sections
      11(1), 11(4)(d), 11(4A), 11(5) and 11B of the SEBI Act read with
      Regulation 10 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations
      2015.
F            2. By the interim order, the Whole Time Member quantified an
      amount of Rs 3,83,16,230.73, being the notional loss sought to be avoided
      on account of trades carried out by the respondent in the scrips of
      Dynamatic Technologies Ltd over unpublished price sensitive information.
      The respondent was directed by the Whole Time Member to credit the
      amount into an Escrow Account.
G
           3. For the purpose of the present appeals, the facts lie in a narrow
      compass. The respondent is the Chief Executive Officer and Managing

      1
        “SEBI”
      2
        “SEBI Act”
      3
H       “Tribunal”
         SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA v.                               329
                    UDAYANT MALHOUTRA

Director of the Company in question. It was alleged that he had sold             A
51,000 shares of the Company on 24 October 2016 having inside
knowledge of price sensitive information, namely, the unaudited financial
results of the quarter ending on 30 September 2016. It was alleged that
the financial results were approved by the Board of Directors on 11
November 2016, upon which the price of the scrips of the Company
                                                                                 B
sustained a drastic reduction. The allegation against the respondent was
that being in possession of price sensitive information and being a
connected person, he had sold the shares and had, thus, made a notional
gain or averted a notional loss. The sales made by the respondent were
the subject matter of an investigation in 2017. It appears from the record
that the investigating team called for information from the respondent on        C
28 November 2019. The Whole Time Member passed an ex parte order
on 15 June 2020.
       4. Before the Tribunal, it was urged by the respondent that there
was no urgency in passing an ex-parte order against the respondent,
regarding a trade done about three years ago and that the ex-parte action        D
of the appellant in requiring a deposit during the pandemic is arbitrary.
Opposing this, the appellant alleged that the reason for passing an ex-
parte order was that there was a possibility of a diversion of the notional
gain made by the respondent. In arriving at its conclusion in the impugned
order, the Tribunal placed reliance on its earlier decision in North End
Foods Marketing Pvt Ltd v Securities and Exchange Board of                       E
India4. In paragraph 11 of the decision, the Tribunal held as follows:
         “11. As held in North End Foods Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
         there is no real urgency in the matter to pass an ex-parte interim
         order especially during the pandemic period. There is no doubt
         that SEBI has the power to pass an interim order and that in            F
         extreme urgent cases SEBI can pass an ex-parte interim order
         but such powers can only be exercised sparingly and only in
         extreme urgent matters. In the instant case, we do not find any
         case of extreme urgency which warranted the respondent to pass
         an ex-parte interim order only on arriving at the prima-facie case      G
         that the appellant was an insider as defined in the SEBI (Prohibition
         of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PIT Regulations’ for short)
         without considering the balance of convenience or irreparable
         injury.”
4
    Appeal 80 of 2019 decided on 12 March 2019                                   H
330               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 14 S.C.R.


A            5. On the facts before it, the Tribunal, in our view, was correct in
      coming to the conclusion that since the investigation was pending since
      2017 and information had been supplied on 28 November 2019, there
      was no urgency for passing an ex-parte interim order of the nature that
      was issued by the Whole Time Member. It was, in this background, that
      the Tribunal, while affirming the power of SEBI to pass an ex parte
B
      interim order in appropriate cases, observed that this should be exercised
      “only in extreme urgent matters”.
             6. On the facts, as they have emerged before this Court, we do
      not find any reason to take a view at variance with the conclusion of the
      Tribunal on the facts of the case. By way of abundant caution, we clarify
C     that we are affirming the view on the facts which have emerged from
      the record before the Tribunal.
             7. Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, however, submitted
      that the reason why SEBI has been constrained to file the appeals is
      because of certain observations contained in the impugned order, on
D     question of law bearing on the statutory powers of SEBI. In particular,
      the attention of the Court was drawn to the following paragraph:
            “9. ...We are of the opinion that no amount towards disgorgement
            can be directed to be deposited in advance unless it is adjudicated
            and quantified unless there is some evidence to show and justify
E           the action taken. An order of the like nature can only be passed
            during the pendency of the proceedings and such orders cannot
            be passed at the time of initiation of the proceedings.”
            8. Section 11(4) of the SEBI Act confers power on SEBI in the
      following terms:
F
            “11.    Functions of Board:
                    ***                            ***                        ***
            (4)     Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-sections
                    (1), (2), (2A) and (3) and section 11B, the Board may, by
G                   an order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the interests
                    of investors or securities market, take any of the following
                    measures, either pending investigation or inquiry or on
                    completion of such investigation or inquiry, namely:—
            (a)     ***
H
      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA v.                                  331
                 UDAYANT MALHOUTRA

       (b) ***                                                                   A
       (c) ***
       (d)   impound and retain the proceeds or securities in respect of
             any transaction which is under investigation;”
       9. Since we have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal was on          B
the facts of the case correct in setting aside the ex-parte order of the
Whole Time Member on the ground that no urgency has been made out
to sustain such an order, it is necessary for this Court to clarify that the
interpretation which has been placed by the Tribunal on the powers of
SEBI, particularly in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, which has been
extracted above, shall not be cited as a precedent in any other case. The        C
order passed by the SEBI must necessarily be in accord with Section
11(4) of the SEBI Act.
       10. With the above clarification, we affirm the view of the Tribunal
on the facts as they have emerged. The appeals are accordingly disposed
of.                                                                              D


Ankit Gyan                                                Appeals disposed of.



                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H