Franklin Templeton hearing to resume today before Supreme Court.

Hearing commences. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora resumes her submissions.

My submission is that Covid was not necessarily an issue and I am proceeding on that basis: Arora.

Even SEBI did not have copy of the resoltuion passed for winding the 6 Schemes: Arora.

Arora listing out the reasons given by Franklin Templeton for winding up the schemes: Covid 19 crisis, continuous heightened redemption in mutual funds.

The resolution about it was placed on record only after High Court called for the same. The SEBI also has acknowledged the same: Arora.
Covid was not the reason. It was only a purported ground. The reason was the SEBI's circular of October 2019: Arora

(The circular mandated mutual funds to cap their exposure to unlisted NCDs at 10 percent of scheme's corpus)

My position is that Franklin Templeton in reckless manner in violation of SEBI guidelines invested in illicit securities. SEBI did not catch it: Arora.

Under SEBI regulations are you required to send the resolution of BOD or only reasons: Bench to Arora.

Arora says she will check it up.

Arora pointing out various instances of omission by SEBI when it failed to respond to various communications regarding the schemes: Arora.

"Unitholders will be justified in their criticism that SEBI was a silent spectator:" Arora quoting from Karnataka High Court judgment.

The investors are entitled to know what has gone wrong with their money. SEBI has to act in the interest of investors. But who will regulate the regulator? This issue needs to be addressed at some point of time. This is an opportunity: Arora.

SEBI has completely failed in protecting interest of investors in this case. SEBI cannot have a say on behalf of investors: Arora concludes her arguments.

Advocate Nithyaesh Natraj representing an intervenor begins arguments.

Consent of unitholders is needed and interpretation by Karnataka High Court of Regulation 18(15)(c) of Mutual Fund Regulation needs to be upheld: Natraj.

Paritosh Gupta: If the authorised person takes a call then unitholders have to wait for interest for three years and there is no time limit specified for widing up.
Justice Khanna: question is whether orders by SEBI is made available or made available in parts or not available at all. These have to be answered. No one has argued this point yet

Adv Madhumita Bhattacharya: There has been gross mismanagement. I would like to lay down investors point of view.
Bhattacharya: SEBI has to protect investors. They don't care. SEBI could have taken proactive action and cannot act as a postman. @SEBI_India
Bhattacharya: It was a very important investment decision. Why didn't they disclose it was not a price sensitive investment.

Justice Khanna: which disclosure is not there. It must be in site

Bhattacharya: SEBI was a mute spectator
Bhattacharya: SEBI in 2013 had laid down a investment protocol. It was a moderate risk investment. I maintain that
Senior Adv Arvind Datar for @SEBI_India:
we are a regulator and we face cases all the time. If some associating is coming against us then they have to be Franklin Investors etc and not individual associations
Datar: Mutual fund is different from a share or a debenture. Unitholders cannot take a call on winding up etc. When we invest we expect a reasonable interest. First time a major crisis came for mutual funds.

SEBI: There cannot be participatory democracy in a unitholders kind of a system.

Datar: Riskometre had showed that these investments were a high risk investments already. Out of these 6 schemes, they were open ended schemes. There was no indication for any problem when we went over it. Impossible to monitor individual schemes at for SEBI
SEBI: Mutual funds must be left to trustees and they should take a call when to wind up.

Dr Singhvi: I believe SEBI will carry a fair adjudication. But I have questions on third party raising questions. These investors are upset and they are bringing these allegations. What is the point of SAT if all these arguments are being made here?
Justice Sanjiv Khanna: In redemption there is obligation to pay. In winding up payment is different and based on realizable value of assets

Datar: If I get 100 crores from market, I will have to plan my investment in such a way that it is more than a provident fund etc
Senior Advocate Datar reads rights and obligations of trustees.
Matter to continue tomorrow.


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Bar & Bench

Bar & Bench Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @barandbench

23 Feb
A Delhi Sessions Court will shortly pronounce its order in Disha Ravi's bail plea in #ToolKit FIR.

Order was reserved by Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana on February 20.


#FarmersProtests #DishaRavi #ToolkitCase
Disha Ravi's one-day police custody with @DelhiPolice also ends today.

#DishaRavi #ToolKit
Opposing grant of bail, the Prosecution had raised apprehensions of evidence tampering.

Prosecution had alleged Ravi conspired with pro-Khalistani organisations to defame India and incite violence amid the #FarmersProtests.

#DishaRavi @DelhiPolice
Read 14 tweets
23 Feb
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul led bench decides to refer question on whether to count the day of remand for calculating time limit of 60 days for default bail & Whether chargesheet filed within the prescribed time period to a 3-judge bench. (,@dir_ed
Vs Kapil Wadhawan) #SupremeCourt
#SupremeCourt says question of interim bail to be considered at the earliest by the three judge bench.

Justice Kaul-- it may not be open for a 2 judge bench to consider these issues.

Singhvi-- they have been in jail for over 11 months. The legal issue is open.
@DrAMSinghvi : When a conflict in law is there the decision should be in favour of the accused.

Justice Kaul-- a larger bench must consider this issue. We will request CJI to constitute a bench at the earliest. The conflict may be capable of resolution by a 3 judge
Read 4 tweets
23 Feb
Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale of #BombayHighCourt will give their verdict in the appeal filed by NIA challenging the bail granted by the Special NIA Court Mumbai to the person accused of joining the global terrorism outfit (ISIS).

Majeed, who travelled to Syria to allegedly join ISIS, was arrested in November 2014 under the UAPA after he returned from Syria. The lower court granted him bail on merits last year.

Matter was reserved for orders by High Court on February 5, 2021.…
Court: The case is divided on two aspects. One on the merits of the case and the other on the aspect of pending trial.

On the merits of the case the Court has set aside the order of the lower court.
On the aspect of pending trial, the order of lower court is upheld.
Read 7 tweets
22 Feb
#Breaking: Disha Ravi produced before Delhi Court in connection with #Toolkit FIR.

Her three-day judicial custody ends today.

Hearing before Dr Pankaj Sharma, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court.

@DelhiPolice #FarmersProtests #DishaRavi
This is for further five days of police custody: Court

Prosecutor informs that Delhi High Court recently passed an order wherein media houses have been asked to ensure that reports are run based on verified sources.

Read 60 tweets
22 Feb
#Amazon vs Future: Delhi High Court begins hearing Amazon's appeal against the observations made by a Single Judge Bench while refusing to restrain the e-commerce company from writing to statutory authorities.

@amazon @fg_buzz

#FutureRetail #Reliance
Today one round was before Surpreme Court : Senior Adv Rajiv Nayar for @amazon
We want to have on some other day if it's convenient: Nayar

#Amazon #Future
Read 6 tweets
22 Feb
#SupremeCourt to hear plea by former Andhra Pradesh HC Chief Justice challenging an order passed by the AP High Court calling for a probe into his telephonic conversations with the District Munsif Magistrate casting aspersions on a sitting SC judge.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: HC was hearing a matter seeking an enquiry on people not following COVID protocol. One suspended magistrate submitted a pen drive and showed my conversation with him. After it was leaked an enquiry was ordered upon
Bhushan: . I said yes conversation took place and some parts of the conversation happened. It was a private conversation and no criminal conspiracy was there. What enquiry is needed?

Senior Adv Harish Salve: Of course there is a need. We don't know what the conversation is about
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!