Skip to main content

Mobilising funds for purchase of future land as pre-booking of plots

In a setback to Adel Landmarks Limited, a real estate enterprise, the SEBI directed the company and its directors to refund the money collected from the public under its ‘pre-booking of plots’ scheme. Adel, without registration and approval under SEBI’s Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) Regulations, collected the money from the public for purchase /acquisition of future land for development of residential colonies. Adel contended that it collected the money for pre-booking of plots being developed on the land already owned by it either directly or through subsidiaries. The SEBI through its whole time member, on the other hand, examining the agreements by Adel with perspective buyers and other materials on record found that Adel was pooling money to purchase future land which amounts to scheme/arrangement under S. 11AA(2)(i) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
He observed that the Company has solicited investments with a promise of refund of investment amount along with return in the nature of compensation. Hence, the second condition, which stipulates that the contributions or payments are made to such scheme or arrangement by the investors with a view to receive profits, income, produce or property as stipulated in Section 11AA (2) (ii) of the SEBI Act is satisfied. He ruled that agreements with the investors do not identify exact plot/land; and till the sale deeds are executed the control of land will be with Adel, therefore the third and fourth conditions to constitute a scheme as CIS stipulated in Section 11AA(2)(iii) and (iv) of the SEBI Act are satisfied. He held that Adel has launched a CIS without obtaining certificate of registration from SEBI; thereby it has contravened the provisions of Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations. Adel and its directors are also found guilty under regulation 4(2)(t) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003.
The order restrained Adel from accessing the securities market and prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities market for a period of 4 years. Criminal proceeding under 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act read with regulation 65(e) of the CIS Regulations and Chapter VI A of the SEBI Act may also be initiated against Adel and its director for indulging into fraudulent practices. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more