Tejo Ratna Kongara v. SEBI [(2023) SCC OnLine SAT 138]

Shareholder’s Appeal Dismissed, Cannot Challenge Scheme of Arrangement Before SEBI

A recent case before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) in Mumbai involved a shareholder’s appeal challenging the order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding a scheme of amalgamation/arrangement between Indiabulls Real Estate Limited and Embassy Group Companies. The SAT, comprising Justice Tarun Agarwala and Meera Swarup, ruled that the appellant, who purchased shares from the shareholder, has no locus to file the appeal as he is not an aggrieved person and cannot pursue the same grievance before another forum, namely, SEBI.

Indiabulls Real Estate Limited had announced the merger with Embassy One Commercial Property Developments Pvt. Ltd., and later, the merger with NAM Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Embassy One Commercial Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. A draft scheme of arrangement was filed before the stock exchanges for obtaining a no objection certificate, which was forwarded to SEBI.

The appellant, who became a shareholder after purchasing shares from a previous shareholder, challenged SEBI’s rejection of the previous shareholder’s representation. The appellant contended that he has the right to continue with the litigation as he stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile complainant.

However, the SAT ruled that becoming a shareholder does not automatically transfer the cause of action, and the complaint remains personal to the original shareholder. The Court clarified that SEBI’s role is limited to issuing observation/no objection letters to schemes of arrangement and does not encompass adjudicating on the merits of the scheme.

The Court emphasized that a shareholder cannot complain about the scheme of arrangement before SEBI or the Stock Exchange, nor can they make representations or file appeals under Section 15T of the SEBI Act. If a shareholder is aggrieved by the scheme, the appropriate remedy is to object during the shareholders’ consideration or before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 230(4) of the Companies Act.

Furthermore, the doctrine of election applies, meaning that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party must choose one, not both. Therefore, once the shareholder had approached the NCLT, it was not open to the shareholder or the appellant to pursue the same grievance before SEBI.

In conclusion, the SAT held that the appellant is not an aggrieved person, and thus, the appeal is not maintainable. The appellant’s attempt to challenge the scheme of arrangement before SEBI was dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming that the proper forum for such grievances is the NCLT.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

An email a day, keeps your legal troubles away!

DISCLAIMER & CONFIRMATION

Under the rules of the Bar Council of India, Parkfields Legal Consultancy (the “Firm”) is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising. By clicking, “I Agree” below, the user acknowledges that:

  • There has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation, or inducement of any sort whatsoever from the Firm or any of its members to solicit any work or advertise through this website
  • The purpose of this website is to provide the user with information about the Firm, its practice areas, its advocates, and solicitors;
  • The user wishes to gain more information about the Firm for his/her own information and personal/ professional use; and
  • The information about the Firm is provided to the user only on his/ her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website are completely at the user’s volition and any transmission, receipt or use of this website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  • This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents hereof should not be construed as legal advice in any manner whatsoever.
  • The Firm is not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/ information provided under this website. In cases where the user requires any assistance, he/she must seek independent legal advice.
  • The content of this website is the Intellectual Property of the Firm.

Please read and accept our website’s Privacy Policy.