SANJIV KHANNA,J. - (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) Two primary questions, in a way interconnected, have been referred by the Referral judgment and order dated 14th March, 2016 passed in Siddharth Chaturvedi vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2016) 12 SCC 119. The correctness of the view expressed on the said two questions by a numerical smaller bench of this Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India through its Chairman vs. Roofit Industries Limited, (2016) 12 SCC 125 would coincidentally arise. The questions referred can be enumerated and summarized as follows: (i) Whether the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15-J of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI Act") are exhaustive to govern the discretion in the Adjudicating Officer to decide on the quantum of penalty or the said conditions are merely illustrative? (ii) Whether the power and discretion vested by Section 15-J of the SEBI Act to decide on the quantum of penalty, regardless of the manner in which the first question is answered, stands eclipsed by the penalty provisions contained in Section 15-A to Section 15-HA of the SEBI Act?
(3.) The SEBI Act, as the object of its enactment would indicate, was enacted "to provide for the establishment of a Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.";