sebi:AO/SBM-ASR/EAD-3/16/2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Provisions invoked
- s. 24
- s. 15
- s. 15C
Full text
Page 2 of 8 Finance Company Ltd in the year 1997 on private placement basis to Crown TV Ltd who in turn had transferred some of the debentures to its TV purchasers. It was also mentioned by the Noticee that the aforementioned private placement of ‘K’ series debentures is not listed on any stock exchange. As per SCORES, the two complaints were received against the Noticee from Shri Kartik Gupta from Bhopal and both the complaints were pertaining to redemption of the ‘K’ Series debentures and the related information sought by Shri Kartik Gupta in this regard.
Page 3 of 8 b. Since the Noticee had failed to take necessary steps to redress the complaints, SEBI sent another letter dated February 15, 2013 to the Noticee with instructions issued to the Noticee to redress the complaints pending against it in SCORES and submit the ATRs for the corresponding complaints. c. Vide letters dated January 22, 2013 and February 15, 2013, the Noticee was advised by SEBI to resolve all the pending investor complaints at the earliest. However, it was observed that as on July 30, 2013, the two complaints were still pending to be resolved by the Noticee. Thus, it was alleged in the SCN that the Noticee had failed to redress the two complaints pending against it in SCORES. It was also alleged in the SCN that the Noticee had failed to respond to the SEBI letters dated January 22, 2013 and February 15, 2013. d. The details of the two pending complaints were also forwarded to the Noticee along with the SCN. It was observed from the list of complaints sent to the Noticee that both the complaints were filed by the same person viz. Shri Kartik Gupta (hereinafter also referred to as "the complainant") and both these complaints were pertaining to the same issue viz, non-receipt of the redemption amount of ‘K’ Series deep discount debentures issued by the Noticee in the year 1997. As per SCORES, the first complaint vide ref no SEBIP/MH10/9113961/1 was received by SEBI on July 26, 2010 and the second complaint vide ref no. SEBIP/MH10/9101256/1 was received by SE
Page 4 of 8 the letter dated March 13, 2013, which was sent to SEBI by the Noticee in response to the letter dated February 15, 2013 issued by SEBI. c. Noticee submitted that the ‘K’ series debentures for which the complainant had filed the complaint in SCORES are not a listed debenture and were privately placed debentures and therefore, not in the domain area of SEBI. d. The Noticee provided a copy of the letter dated November 2010 which they had sent to the complainant in November 2010 seeking certain documents from the complainant to enable the company to make the payment for the unlisted debentures. e. In the year 2003, when the subject matter of the entire issue of debentures and their non-payment under various series was litigated before the Bombay High Court in a suit filed by the trustees, based on the directions received from the Hon’ble High Court in the matter, the terms of the redemption of the debentures were modified with immediate repayment. Accordingly, the Noticee, despite its prevailing severe adverse financial position, redeemed all the debentures at the revised value as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. f. There have been no complaints left unattended by the Noticee.
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:AO/SBM-ASR/EAD-3/16/2015. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.