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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more