Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd. vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 22.08.2019

Misc. Application No. 397 of 2019 And Appeal No. 316 of 2019

1.

Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd.

B- 5, Hotel Aathithya Palace Complex, 2013 Junction Road, SonkhAdda, Mathura - 281 001 (UP).

2. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh 88, Poonam Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 001.

3. Mrs. Guddi Devi 88, Poonam Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 001.

4. Mr. Krishna Pal Singh H. No. 8, Kailash Nagar, Near Amarnath School, Mathura, (UP) - 281 001.

5. Mr. Rajendra Singh Thakur Village Jachoda, Dist Mathura, (UP) - 281 001.

6. Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh Village Bankota, Dist. Badaun, (UP) - 202 526.

7. Mr. Nathu Singh 10/2, Veterinary College, Mathura - 281 001 (UP).

2

8. Mr. Raksha Pal Singh 130/21, Gopal Nagar, Govind Nagar, Mathura, UP - 281 001.

9. Mr. Pooran Prakash Village Mahmadpur, Block - Goverdhan, Dist - Mathura, 281 502 (UP).

10. Mr. Devendra Pal Singh 1/36, Surendra Nagar, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202 137.

11. Smt. Rajeshwari Senegar H. No. 190, Chhatikara, ..... Appellants Dist Mathura - 281 001 (UP).

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...... Respondent

Mr. M. S. Bhardwaj, Advocate i/b MSB Legal for the Appellants. Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Sushant Yadav, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 3

Misc. Application No. 397 of 2019 :

1. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons

stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Misc. Application is allowed.

Appeal No. 316 of 2019 :

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred

to as, 'SEBI') passed an order dated July 3, 2015 holding M/s.

Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd. was engaged in operating Collective

Investment Scheme (CIS) by mobilizing funds from the public in

contravention of Section 12(1B) of the Securities and Exchange

Board of India Act, 1992 and consequently, in order to protect the

interest of the investors in the securities market, SEBI directed the

company and its directors to wind up the collective investment

schemes and refund the money collected within the period of three

months.

2. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal which was

disposed of on the strength of the submission made by the appellants

that irrespective of the fact as to whether this scheme was CIS or not,

the appellants were willing to refund the amount to the investors. On 4

the basis of this statement, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by an

order dated November 23, 2017 permitting the appellants to make the

representation setting out in details the names of the investors and

quantum of the amount already refunded and the mode and the

manner in which the balance amount would be refunded.

3. Based on the aforesaid direction, a representation was filed by

the appellants giving the details of the amount which was required to

be paid by the company and also gave a list showing the amount paid

/ refunded to the investors. The list of payments made did not

indicate the manner and the mode of repayment and consequently,

SEBI directed the appellants to provide details of the manner in

which the payments were made to the investors. Since no details

were supplied, the representation of the appellants was rejected by

the impugned order dated February 28, 2019. The appellants being

aggrieved by the said order have filed the present appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we find

from the list that was supplied to SEBI that only the date and the

amount have been mentioned in the list. No details as to how this

amount was paid, viz, by way of cash or by cheque or by RTGS etc.,

has not been indicated. Specific details were asked which has not

been supplied. Thus, the list that was supplied became a suspect. 5

Further, nothing was indicated with regard to the mode and the

manner in which the balance amount would be refunded.

5. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the

representation filed by the appellants was rightly rejected. The

impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error of law. The

appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

22.08.2019 Prepared & Compared by PTM