Summary
SEBI challenged the Tribunal’s reversal of market-access and securities-dealing restrictions imposed over allegedly misleading advertisements and manipulation. The Court held that the challenged factual inferences raised no question of law warranting interference under Section 15Z. It dismissed the appeal while setting aside the Tribunal’s general proposition that cross-examination was an inviolable right in all cases, expressly leaving that legal question open for an appropriate case.
Issues
- What constitutes a question of law permitting a Supreme Court appeal under Section 15Z.
- Whether the Tribunal’s factual findings or its general statement on cross-examination warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 15Z, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992Appellate jurisdiction was confined to questions of law arising from the Tribunal’s order, with due regard to the specialist Tribunal’s statutory role. (¶¶ 12-20, 24-29)
Held
- Section 15Z permits correction of erroneous construction of statutory provisions or general legal principles. It does not turn every interpretation or factual inference into a question of law requiring intervention; the specialist Tribunal’s role in consistently developing the regulatory regime informs the Court’s measured approach. (¶ 12-20)
- The Tribunal’s conclusions on the tour-services and foreign-exchange announcements rested on agreements, banking material and the history of the licence application. Those factual inferences supplied no question of law warranting interference in this appeal. (¶ 22-26)
- The findings on alleged share-price and account manipulation likewise rested on the Tribunal’s assessment of the record, including failure to establish the alleged connections between trading entities and the company. The Court declined to revisit those factual conclusions. (¶ 27-29)
- The relevant-material disclosure principles in T. Takano supplied guidance but did not resolve a universal right to cross-examination. Given the independent factual grounds supporting the Tribunal’s result, the cross-examination controversy was academic here. (¶ 34-36)
- The Tribunal had no need to declare cross-examination an inviolable right in every case. That general finding was set aside, while the question of law was left open for an appropriate case and the remainder of the decision was upheld. (¶ 37-38)
Result
Appeal dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs. The Tribunal’s general observation recognising a right of cross-examination in all cases was set aside; the legal question was left open.