Securities And Exchange Board Ofindia vs. Shreehas P. Tambe

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No.4905/2022

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAJEEV VASANT SHETH & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.102281/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.102275/2022-STAY APPLICATION AND IA No. 102275/2022 - STAY APPLICATION)

WITH

C.A. No. 7791/2022 (XVII) (IA No.160694/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.160693/2022-STAY APPLICATION)

Date : 06-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv. M/S. K J John And Co, AOR

Mr. Navin Phawa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. M/S. K Ashar & Co., AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ravichandra S. Hegde, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Jain, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Ms. Meghna Rao, Adv. Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, AOR Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Ms. Prachi Rawal, Adv.

1

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The parties have exchanged the questions which would arise for

consideration in the present appeals, which read as under:

"1. Whether, the Hon'ble SAT grossly erred in completely ignoring the Explanation as also the Note while recording its finding in Para 12 of the impugned order?

2. Whether in view of finding of fact that the respondents admittedly are insiders as defined in Regulation 2(g) r/w. Regulation 2(d) which defines "insider" and "connected person" when admittedly the respondents were also in possession of UPSI, it was still open for the respondents to prove their innocence as per the proviso to Regulation 4(1)?

3. Whether the SAT was right in holding that the exceptions as stated in the proviso to Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations are not exhaustive but are rather inclusive/ illustrative in nature?

4. Whether the SAT erred in ignoring that the declaration of Financial Results did have a great impact on the price of the Company with the loss avoided by the Respondents amounting to Rs.1,38,31,472.60 which is substantial in nature?

5. Whether the judgment in the case of SEBI vs. Abhijeet Rajan will have any application to the facts of the present case when admittedly in the present case the respondents have indulged into sale of substantial holding with an intent to take an exit from the Company after coming into possession of the UPSI?

6. Whether the judgment in the case of SEBI v. Abjijeet Rajan will have any application when admittedly sale of shares in the facts of the present case are made when the UPSI reflected poor financials of the Company as against the case in Abhijeet Rajan where the shares were disposed only to make compliance of the CDR which was in the interest of the Company?

7. Whether the SAT erred in interpreting the provisions of Clause 6 of the Minimum Standards for code of conduct to Regulate, Monitor and Report Trading by Insiders specified in Schedule-B r/w Regulation 9(1) of the PIT Regulations, 2015?

8. Whether the judgment in the case of Abhijeet Rajan would have any application to facts of present case when admitted by the said judgment was delivered under 1992 Regulations and not 2015 Regulations ?"

2. In view of above, list the matter on 07.08.2025.

(RAJNI MUKHI) (ANU BHALLA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)