Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Case Number Appeal No. 31 of 2020 and Appeal No. 23 of 2021 Advocates Mr. P.N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neville Lashkari, Ms. Khushali Palrecha, Advocates i/b. Crawford Bayley ; Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Mr. Karthik Narayan, Mr. Harshavardhan Nankani, Advocates i/b. ELP Judges Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer M.T. Joshi, Member (Judicial) See more information ... Smart Summary Structured Summary of the Tribunal's Opinion Factual and Procedural Background This matter arises from allegations of insider trading under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 ("PIT Regulations") involving transactions in the shares of Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Two SEBI orders gave rise to these appeals: (a) an Adjudicating Officer's order dated 23 September 2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 7.5 crores on the appellant; and (b) a Whole Time Member's order dated 4 August 2020 restraining market access (for one year and three years in dealing with Aurobindo Pharma shares) and directing disgorgement of Rs. 3.77 crores as notional profit with interest at 12% per annum. Against the AO order, the appellant filed Appeal No. 31 of 2020; against the WTM order, Appeal No. 23 of 2021 was filed. The core factual allegations (as found by SEBI and relied upon by the Tribunal) are: Between 22 July 2008 and 29 December 2008, Aurobindo Pharma entered into three Licensing and Supply Agreements with Pfizer; these agreements were publicly disclosed by a press release on 3 March 2009, on which date Aurobindo Pharma's share price rose sharply (intra-day high of 13%, closing 7% higher), while indices fell. SEBI treated those agreements as price-sensitive information and investigated trading around the unpublished period. Several noticees were investigated; one noticee, Veritaz Health Care Ltd. ("Veritaz"), was found to be closely connected to Aurobindo Pharma (shared office/email, personal guarantees, product manufacturing links, fund transfers). Veritaz purchased 787,026 shares of Aurobindo Pharma at an average price of Rs. 173.37 prior to public disclosure. The appellant received Rs. 10 crores from Veritaz on 9 February 2009; those funds were used to purchase Aurobindo Pharma shares on 11–12 February 2009; the appellant later sold the shares in March and June 2009. Other noticees settled with SEBI; proceedings continued only against the appellant, leading to the impugned orders challenged in these appeals. Legal Issues Presented Whether the appellant traded in Aurobindo Pharma shares while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI) in contravention of the PIT Regulations. Whether the appellant qualifies as an "insider" under regulation 2(e) of the PIT Regulations by virtue of being connected to (or having received UPSI from) entities connected to Aurobindo Pharma. Whether the delay in issuance of the show cause notice (said to be eight years) caused prejudice to the appellant sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. Whether the disgorgement of notional profits (Rs. 3.77 crores) with interest and the penalty imposed by the AO (Rs. 7.5 crores) are correctly quantified and sustainable. Arguments of the Parties Appellant's Arguments The appellant asserted that it had changed business to trading in securities and borrowed Rs. 10 crores from Veritaz in the ordinary course; the amount was subsequently repaid (supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate and TDS documents). There was a gross delay of eight years in issuing the show cause notice (SCN) dated 6 September 2017; as a result, the appellant could not produce the loan agreement said to exist between it and Veritaz (it claimed the agreement was untraceable after the lapse of time). The appellant denied receipt of any UPSI from Veritaz or others, arguing there was no direct evidence of receipt of UPSI; it contested being labelled an insider solely because of a fund transfer and contemporaneous purchase of shares. Trading pattern: the appellant argued that it did not sell shares immediately after the March 3, 2009 disclosure but sold later (end-March to June 2009), and that some shares were sold at prices lower than the price on 4 March 2009—suggesting regular trading rather than trading on UPSI. The appellant contested the interest claimed on disgorgement (arguing the interest component was unsustainable and unjust). During the appeal pendency SEBI sold shares from the appellant's account (recovering Rs. 1,48,20,294.88) and the appellant had also deposited Rs. 3,51,79,705; the appellant sought relief accordingly if appeals were allowed. Respondent's (SEBI's) Arguments SEBI contended that Veritaz was a close-knit group member of Aurobindo Pharma (shared office/email, personal guarantee by Aurobindo's promoter for Veritaz's bank loan, production links and fund transfers) and therefore closely connected to Aurobindo Pharma. Because the appellant received Rs. 10 crores from Veritaz and then purchased Aurobindo Pharma shares (having no prior trading history in those shares), SEBI argued the appellant was a front entity used by Veritaz to purchase shares on unpublished information. SEBI relied on the web of connections and transactional facts to establish on a preponderance of probability that the appellant traded while in possession of UPSI and therefore urged dismissal of the appeals. Table of Precedents Cited Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju vs. SEBI [(2018) 7 SSC 443] Referenced by the appellant among cases where the charge of receiving UPSI was not accepted. The Tribunal noted it was relied upon by the appellant and that counsel distinguished the authorities; the Tribunal did not find it decisive on the facts of this case. Samir Arora vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 83 of 2004 dated 1 Sept 2004) Referenced by the appellant as authority where receiving UPSI was not established. Recognized and distinguished by the Tribunal; not treated as determinative in this matter. Mr. Manoj Gaur vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 64 of 2012 dated 3 Oct 2012) Referenced by the appellant for the proposition that receiving UPSI was not established. The Tribunal recorded reliance and distinguished the case on the facts before it. Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd. (SEBI) Referenced by the appellant as a decision where charge of receiving UPSI was not accepted. The Tribunal noted the precedent but found the factual matrix here different and did not apply it to overturn SEBI's findings. Dilip S. Pendse vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 80 of 2009 dated 19 Nov 2009) Cited by the appellant to stress that a higher degree of preponderance of probability is required in establishing receipt of UPSI. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle concerning the standard of proof (higher scale of preponderance of probabilities) but applied that standard to the facts and found SEBI had established the charge on preponderance of probability. Navin Kumar Tayal vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 8 of 2018 decided 2 Aug 2021) Cited by the respondent in support of SEBI's position. The Tribunal noted SEBI relied on this authority; the bench considered submissions distinguishing authorities but ultimately concluded facts established SEBI's case. V. K. Kaul vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 55 of 2012 dated 8 Oct 2012) Cited by the respondent in support of SEBI's case. The Tribunal recorded reliance by SEBI and noted counsel's attempts to distinguish; the precedent did not alter the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion. Gagan Rastogi vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 91 of 2015 dated 12 July 2019) Cited by the respondent in support of SEBI's position. The Tribunal observed the citation and the parties' arguments; the case was not followed as a basis to overturn SEBI's findings on the present facts. Court's Reasoning and Analysis The Tribunal gave a fact-driven analysis, applying the PIT Regulations' definition of "insider" and assessing whether SEBI had proved that the appellant had traded while in possession of UPSI on a preponderance of probability (in a higher scale where appropriate). Key steps in the Tribunal's reasoning: Connection and transactional facts: The Tribunal observed that the documentary record showed strong connections between Veritaz and Aurobindo Pharma (shared office/email, personal guarantees, production links and fund transfers). The Tribunal characterized this connection as "writ large" on the record. Appellant's trading history: The Tribunal noted the appellant had not traded in Aurobindo Pharma shares prior to the transactions at issue and that the appellant commenced trading in that scrip after receiving funds (Rs. 10 crores) from Veritaz; the appellant subsequently continued as an active trader with substantial turnover. Failure to produce loan agreement: The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that the eight-year delay in issuing the SCN caused inability to produce a loan agreement. The Tribunal relied on SEBI's earlier red flag and questionnaire (dated 31 January 2011) which specifically asked whether the appellant was connected to Veritaz and others. Because SEBI had raised queries within two years of the transactions, the Tribunal found the appellant could not rely on delay as excusing non-production of the loan agreement. On evidentiary standard: The Tribunal reiterated that whether an entity had received UPSI is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the preponderance of probability (albeit in higher scales where applicable). It acknowledged authorities cited by both sides and noted that counsel had distinguished those authorities. Inference from the totality of facts: Although SEBI had not established on record the exact source from whom the appellant received UPSI, the Tribunal held that the combination of facts—funds from a closely connected entity (Veritaz), sudden purchase in a scrip with which the appellant had no prior trading history, and the subsequent price run-up and sustained higher pricing—made it probable, on a preponderance of probability, that the appellant traded while in possession of UPSI. Disgorgement and penalty: The Tribunal treated disgorgement as an equitable remedy and held that calculations of notional gains by the AO/WTM did not require interference by the Tribunal on the record before it. Holding and Implications Holding: Both appeals (Appeal No. 31 of 2020 and Appeal No. 23 of 2021) are DISMISSED without any order as to costs. Implications / Consequences: The orders of the Adjudicating Officer (penalty of Rs. 7.5 crores) and the Whole Time Member (restrictions on market access, disgorgement of Rs. 3.77 crores with interest at 12% per annum) stand as against the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the AO/WTM calculations of notional gains and declined to interfere with disgorgement as an equitable remedy on the record before it. The opinion does not announce any broader legal precedent beyond applying established principles (the definition of "insider" under the PIT Regulations and the application of a higher-scale preponderance of probability to fact determinations concerning receipt of UPSI). The decision's immediate effect is limited to upholding the impugned orders as to the parties before the Tribunal. Administrative note from the opinion: the matter was heard by video conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic; the order was to be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and parties were directed to act on the digitally signed copy transmitted by fax and/or email. Show full summary ... JUDGMENT ORIGINAL PDF To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe. Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board Of India Sebi, Mumbai-400 051 . BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date of Decision : 08.03.2022 Appeal No. 31 of 2020 Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. 1001, Sunshine Heights, Kalina, CST Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400 098. ….. Appellant Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. … Respondent With Appeal No. 23 of 2021 Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. 1001, Sunshine Heights, Kalina, CST Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400 098. ….. Appellant Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. … Respondent 12 Mr. P. N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neville Lashkari, Ms. Khushali Palrecha, Advocates i/b. Crawford Bayley for the Appellant. Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Mr. Karthik Narayan, Mr. Harshavardhan Nankani, Advocates i/b. ELP for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per : Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member 1. Both the present appeals have arisen out of the same facts on the basis of which two separate orders were passed; one by the learned Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') dated September 23, 2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 7.5 crores on the appellant and another order of the learned Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to as 'WTM') dated August 4, 2020 restraining any access to security market for one year and 3 years in dealing with the shares of Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. as well directing the appellant to disgorge an amount of Rs. 3.77 crore as a notional profit with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. 3 2. Against the order of the learned AO, appeal no. 31 of 2020 is preferred and against the order of the learned WTM appeal no. 23 of 2021 is filed. 3. The allegations are of insider trading in contravention of the provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'PIT Regulations'). 4. The facts in the case would show that the appellant is alleged to be a connected person with another noticee Veritaz Health Care Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Veritaz'). In a nutshell, the allegations are that the appellant had received an Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (hereinafter referred to as 'UPSI') through Veritaz as regards the Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Aurobindo Pharma') of which rest of four noticees were connected. Thus, in all six noticees were charged for contravention of the PIT Regulations. Before the learned AO, all these noticees contested the case and upon hearing them the learned AO imposed penalty in various amounts. Before the learned WTM however, except the present appellant, all other noticees made an application for the settlement of the proceedings. Their applications were 4 accepted by the respondent SEBI and, therefore, the proceedings continued only as against the present appellant in which the impugned order was passed by the learned WTM. 5. We have heard Mr. P. N. Modi, the learned senior counsel with Mr. Neville Lashkari, Ms. Khushali Palrecha, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Joshi, the learned senior counsel with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Mr. Karthik Narayan, Mr. Harshavardhan Nankani, the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The facts, in brief, are as under :- 7. For a period between July 2008 and December 2008 Aurobindo Pharma had entered into three Licensing and Supply Agreements with Pfizer regarding various solid oral dosage products for USA, for France and for Pan Europe (including France). These agreements executed between July 22, 2008 and December 29, 2008 were disclosed by Aurobindo Pharma vide a press release on March 3, 2009. The press release declared that it was pleased to announce it's partnership with Pfizer and it was an exciting opportunity for Aurobindo Pharma which would provide for stability towards company's earnings and accelerate it's growth plans. On the very same day, the share price of the Aurobindo Pharma had touched an 5 intra-day high of 13% as compared to previous day's close and ultimately closed at 7% higher than the earlier close. SEBI noted that on the same day Sensex and Nifty i.e two indices commonly used as barometers of the Indian stock exchange closed 2% down each on that day. All these facts led the respondent SEBI to conclude that three agreements as detailed earlier were price sensitive informations. 8. Respondent SEBI conducted investigation in the matter and found that during the period the information was unpublished, all the notices were connected. The original noticee no. 1, was promoter and executive chairman of Aurobindo Pharma, noticee no. 2 his wife, noticee no. 3 brother of noticee no. 1 as well as the managing director of the Aurobindo Pharma. Noticee no. 4 Trident Chemphar Ltd. - was owned by the son of notice no 1 and during the relevant period it was the promoter of Aurobindo Pharma group. 9. Noticee no. 5 Veritaz was sharing the same office and email address of Aurobindo Pharma. Further web of connections between them i.e. providing personal guarantee by the notice no. 1 to the bank loan obtained by Veritaz, production of certain brands of Aurbindo Pharma by this veritaz, fund transfer during the relevant period etc. 6 were found. Noticee no. 5 Veritaz had purchased 787026 shares of Aurobindo Pharma at an average price of Rs. 173.37 when the UPSI was yet to be published. 10. So far as the present appellant is concerned, it had received a fund of Rs. 10 crores from notice no. 5 Veritaz on February 9, 2009 before the UPSI was published. This amount was utilized by it for purchase of shares of the Aurobindo Pharma on February 11 and 12, 2009. Later on, the appellant sold those shares in the month of March and June 2009. SEBI alleged that the appellant, thus, acting as a front entity of Veritaz had indulged into the insider trading. Therefore, the learned WTM as well as the learned AO passed for the violations of the PIT Regulations. 11. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in fact was earlier named as Top Class Education Facilities and Services Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2008-09, it changed it's business to trading in securities with funds borrowed from third parties. Therefore, in regular course of business, the appellant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 10 crores from Veritaz. Since the show cause notice was issued after gross delay of 8 years on September 6, 2017, the appellant did not have the agreement of loan executed between 7 the appellant and Veritaz. However, the certificate of Chartered Accountant fortified by the tax deducted at source documents would show that the amount was repaid later on. The gross delay in issuing notice and conducting the proceedings has caused prejudice. Further, there is no an iota of evidence to show that the appellant had at any time received the UPSI either from Veritaz or from anybody. Simply on the basis of fund transfer from Veritaz to it and purchase of the shares of Aurobindo Pharma during the relevant period, the appellant is branded as an insider under the PIT Regulations. The appellant however at all cannot be called insider. The trading pattern of the appellant that though it has purchased the shares in the month of February 2009, the same were not sold immediately upon publication of the so called UPSI on March3, 2009, but after a period of around one month and five months (March 31, 2009 till June 10, 2009), would show that the appellant in regular course of business had purchased the shares and sold the same in the market. Alternatively, it was submitted that the disgorgement of notional profit and interest thereon as well as the penalty imposed does not take into consideration the fact of selling of the shares at lower prices than the price which was available on March 4, 2009. At any rate, according to the learned senior counsel the interest claimed by the respondent at 8 Rs. 5.40 crores on the alleged disgorgement amount of Rs. 3.77 crores by the WTM is unsustainable and unjust. 12. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal respondent SEBI has sold the shares from the appellant's account and recovered an amount of Rs. 1,48,20,294.88. Additionally, the appellant had also deposited an amount of Rs. 3,51,79,705/-. In the circumstances, it was submitted that in case the appeals are allowed then a relief as prayed in the amended memo of appeal may be granted. 13. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that while the other noticees were closely connected to Aurobindo Pharma, more particularly Veritaz from whom the appellant has received funds of Rs. 10 crores from which the shares of Aurobindo Pharma were purchased was nothing but the close knit group member of Aurobindo Pharma. It shared the same office and even email of Aurobindo Pharma. The details of more connections between the two i.e personal guarantee by the notice no. 1 to the bank loan availed by Veritaz, many products of Aurobindo Pharma actually produced by Veritaz etc. are detailed in the impugned orders. Further, earlier to this transaction, the appellant neither had traded in any shares much less the shares of Aurobindo 9 Pharma and suddenly purchased those shares from the funds provided by Veritaz would clearly establish high degree of preponderance of probability that Veritage has used the appellant as a front entity for purchase of the shares which were later on sold in the above manner. It was, therefore, submitted that both the appeals be dismissed. 14. Upon hearing both the sides, in our view, the appeals are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons. 15. The connection of Veritaz from whom the appellant had received an amount of Rs. 10 crore for purchase of the shares of Aurobindo Pharma with Aurobindo Pharma and its managing director, etc. is writ large on the face of record of the case. The record would show that the appellant had never traded in the shares of Aurobindo Pharma earlier. The record also show that prior to these transactions the appellant had no history of trading in the shares. The documents filed by the appellant show that after these transactions, the appellant continued in the business of trading in the various shares and had a very handsome turnover in the years to come. The appellant has not filed on record any loan agreement between it and Veritaz which was pointed by the learned WTM as 10 well as the learned AO in the impugned order. The appellant contends that since 8 years has passed form the date of the transactions, the loan agreement remained untraceable and the appellant is not able to fully recollect the details of the strategy for choosing the trades in the said scrip in 2009. However, these submissions cannot be accepted for the following facts. 16. The appellant has filed on record the copies of the questionnaire sent by the respondent SEBI to the appellant Exhibit 'C' in appeal no. 23 of 2021. This document would show that the respondent SEBI had red flagged to the appellant these transactions on January 31, 2011 i.e. just within two years of the disputed purchase of the shares. In this questionnaire, SEBI vide paragraph no. (o) has specifically asked the appellant as to whether it was holding any stake or was "connected to" Veritaz and three other entities. Thus, within 2 years of the transactions, the appellant was made aware of the fact that SEBI was conducting investigation in those transactions. Therefore, the case of the appellant that since the show cause notice was issued after 8 years, it could not trace the loan agreement and any other supporting documents cannot be accepted. It is worthwhile to note that to the above specific query of the respondent SEBI that as to whether the appellant has any stake / 11 related / connected or deemed to be connected to these four entities including Veritaz, the appellant replied vide Exhibit 'D' dated March 10, 2011 vide paragraph no. (o) "we wish to submit that we do not hold any stake or we are not related with the companies mentioned in your aforesaid letter …..". However, SEBI's query as to whether the appellant was connected with Veritaz is not specifically answered that it had connection in the nature of fund transfer or obtaining loan from Veritaz. In all these circumstances, the case of the appellant that the delay in issuing the show cause notice has caused prejudice in defending the case for non-tracing the loan agreement and supporting documents cannot be accepted. 17. The appellant has relied in number of cases to buttress its case of delay causing prejudice in those cases. However, since the delay has caused prejudice in those cases, the plea of the appellant therein was accepted by this Tribunal. 18. As regards the case as to whether the appellant can be termed as insider or not, it would be appropriate to refer the definition of 'insider' provided under the PIT Regulations. The same is extracted hereunder :- 12 "2(e). "insider" means any person who, (i) is or was connected with the company or is deemed to have been connected with the company and is reasonably expected to have access to unpublished price sensitive information in respect of securities of [a] company, or (ii) has received or has had access to such unpublished price sensitive information." 19. The issue as to whether an entity had received UPSI from other noticee or connected person is essentially a question of fact. However the learned senior counsel for the appellant has relied in the cases of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju vs. SEBI [(2018) 7 SSC 443], Samir Arora vs. SEBI appeal no. 83 of 2004 dated September 1, 2004, Mr. Manoj Gaur vs. SEBI appeal no. 64 of 2012 dated October 3, 2012 decided by this Tribunal and Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd. passed by SEBI, wherein the charge of receiving UPSI by the appellants therein was not accepted. Further the case of Dilip S. Pendse vs. SEBI appeal no. 80 of 2009 dated November 19, 2009, was relied to stress that higher degree of preponderance of probabilities is required to be established in such cases. 20. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent SEBI has relied in the cases of Navin Kumar Tayal vs. 1213 SEBI appeal no. 8 of 2018 decided on August 2, 2021, V. K. Kaul vs. SEBI appeal no. 55 of 2012 dated October 8, 2012 and Gagan Rastogi vs. SEBI appeal no. 91 of 2015 dated July 12, 2019 decided by this Tribunal. 21. Both the learned senior counsel with their remarkable skills had distinguished the declaration made by this Tribunal in each of the above cases. 22. In our view, when a person can be called as insider and whether has traded when in possession of such UPSI is essentially a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the each case by applying the standard of preponderance of probability albeit in higher scales. 23. It is true that the respondent has not established as to from whom the appellant had received the insider information from any of the other noticee. The facts, however, highlighted in the orders , that the appellant had begun it's career as a trader in shares with these very shares of Aurobindo Pharma, that too after obtaining a fund of Rs. 10 crores from the closely connected entity of Aurobindo Pharma and other notices, that it has no other substantial business in trading shares during the period, that no sooner the shares of Aurobindo 14 Pharma were purchased upon publication of this information the price of the share skyrocketed and stabilized at a higher price for a long period, in absence of any acceptable counter material would necessarily show that SEBI has proved the charge on preponderance of probability. Thus the appellant has traded and purchased the shares of Aurobindo Pharma when in possession of UPSI, therefore, the appeals fail. 24. As regards, the quantum of disgorgement or the penalty imposed upon the appellant, it is to be noted that disgorgement is an equitable remedy and, therefore, the calculation made by the AO or the WTM on the basis of notional gains needs no interference. Hence the following order :- ORDER 25. Both the appeals no. 31 of 2020 and 23 of 2021 are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. 26. The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned 15 parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 08.03.2022 PTM Legend Legend Size = Directly proportional to the number of citations Color = Jurisdiction Supreme Court High Courts Tribunals Line Incoming = Cited by Outgoing = Cites Use AI to get other relevant cases. Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro