The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has decided to appeal against the recent Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) order favouring Sterlite Industries. Sebi plans to file a petition against the order in the Mumbai High Court. A recent SAT order had kept aside the Sebi order against Sterlite Industries prohibiting it from accessing the capital markets for two years while orders were also passed to initiate prosecution proceedings against its directors.
Sebi officials were miffed at the way SAT has overruled its order on Sterlite Industries and are apprehensive that it will trigger a whole lot of appeals from various aggrieved parties undoing the work put in by the regulator over the last few years and especially in recent months. The ruling against Sterlite in the current case also means that its buy-back programme can go through. BPL, Videocon -- who were barred from accessing the capital markets on the same grounds as Sterlite -- can now also hope to expect a reprieve.
"We are expecting SAT to overturn our ruling in all the cases," a senior Sebi official said, adding that Sebi would take a decision on moving a higher court.
More From This Section
However, the biggest fear of Sebi arises from the fact that SAT in its observations has noted that the provisions of Section 11(B), under which almost all its actions are taken, "does not even remotely empower Sebi to impose penalties." The tribunal went so far as to say that Sebi itself had taken the view "that Section 11B is not a penal provision, but preventive and remedial in its application."
According to a senior Sebi official, this interpretation of the section would be taken as a talking point by all those who have so far been indicted by Sebi as responsible for the market crash in March this year. The fear is that Anand Rathi, Shankar Sharma, Nirmal Bang, Credit Suisse First Boston, all of whom have been barred from the markets, will again go in appeal before higher courts and cite the current ruling as a precedent.
With regard to SAT's observations that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a link between the Damayanti group and the company or that it had indulged in market manipulation, the official pointed out that as a regulator it had to go with the evidence available. "A quasi-judicial authority such as ours can take action based on circumstantial evidence," the Sebi official said, adding, "If we wait for conclusive evidence then we can never take action."