Sebi had ordered cancellation of 'certificate of registration' of Sahara Mutual Fund in July 2015, while barring the fund house from taking any further subscription from investors, after the regulator found the group was "no longer fit and proper to carry on the business of mutual fund".
Sebi also ordered transfer of the business to another asset management company, to be followed by re-constitution of its board of trustees, failing which Sahara Mutual Fund was asked to redeem units allotted to all investors and thereafter wind up the operations.
After the order was pronounced by the SAT, the counsel for the appellants made an oral appeal for staying the operation of the order for a period of six weeks to enable the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
"Accordingly, six weeks stay is granted," the SAT said in its 21-page order.
As per the latest data published by the mutual fund industry body AMFI (Association of Mutual Funds in India), Sahara Mutual Fund had average asset under management of about Rs 67 crore as on June-end 2017.
"The present appeal before us is regarding the fit and proper status of a Promoter/Director of Sahara Sponsor who holds about 80 per cent of its capital and who controls all Sahara Group Companies and hence on the fit and proper status of Sahara Sponsor to continue as Sponsor of a mutual fund in the context of Sebi/Supreme Court orders against (Subrata Roy) Sahara and two Sahara Group Companies," the SAT observed.
The Tribunal said the law empowers Sebi to take actions in the interest of protecting investors and hence lifting the corporate veil to the extent to identify who controls a regulated entity cannot be faulted.
"Without such a power, Sebi will be a mute spectator to many of the corporate misdeeds which may jeopardise the interests of investors. Given the mandate of Sebi to protect the interests of the investors in the securities market, Sebi is statutorily empowered to lift the corporate veil and find out the truth whenever interests of the investors are affected or likely to be affected," it said.
"It was also found that one of the Promoters/Directors is prima facie holding absolute control over the group companies," SAT said.
The Tribunal also referred to its earlier order in Financial Technologies India Ltd versus Sebi case, upholding a Sebi order that found the appellant firm and directors were not 'fit and proper' solely based on the decision of the erstwhile regulator Forward Markets Commission.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
