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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
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