sebi:EAD/KS/VB/AO/65-69/2017-18

SEBI · SEBI · 2015-08-14 · K Saravanan, General Manager & Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 imposed jointly and severally on IHI Developers India Limited and its four directors under Section 15D(a) of the SEBI Act

Provisions invoked

Regulations

Parties

Holding

The schemes/plans of IHI Developers India Limited satisfy all four conditions of Section 11AA(2) and are collective investment schemes run without SEBI registration in violation of Section 12(1B) and Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations, attracting monetary penalty under Section 15D(a) imposed jointly and severally for Rs. 1 crore.

Full text

Page 2 of 15 (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIS Regulations’). 2. In the said matter, SEBI had also passed final order dated August 14, 2015 against the Noticees directing them, inter-alia, to abstain from collecting any money from the investors or carrying out/ launching any Collective Investment Schemes and to wind up the existing Schemes and to refund the monies collected from the investors through various schemes launched by them.

Page 3 of 15 5. Thereafter, in the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry in terms of Rule 4(3) of the Adjudication Rules, Noticee-2 to Noticee-5 were granted a final opportunity to submit reply before October 14, 2017 and an opportunity of personal hearing on October 23, 2017 vide hearing Notice dated September 29, 2017. The undelivered SCN to Noticee-2 to Noticee-5 were also attached with the said hearing Notice. The Hearing Notice dated September 29, 2017 along undelivered SCN to Noticee-2 to Noticee-4 were delivered through hand delivery and was duly acknowledged. Further, the hearing Notice addressed to Noticee-5 along with undelivered SCN was affixed at the last known address of Noticee-5. In the meanwhile, vide hearing Notice dated October 13,2017, Noticee-1 was granted a final opportunity to submit reply before October 21, 2017 and an opportunity of personal hearing on October 23, 2017. The said Notice to Noticee-1 was sent RPAD and by email to email address pktangri@gmail.com as noted from MCA website. The said Notice was noted to be delivered to the address on record as per postal records. On the scheduled date of hearing on October 23, 2017, none of the Noticees attended the hearing.

Page 4 of 15 as evident from the postal records. However, vide letter dated nil received vide fax dated December 15, 2017, Noticee-2 again sought an adjournment of hearing under the pretext of death of a family member and produced no document in support of the same. Still Noticee-1 was granted a final opportunity of hearing on December 28, 2017 vide Hearing Notice dated December 18, 2017. A scanned copy of the letter dated December 18, 2017 was also sent to the e-mail ID rishimongafzr@gmail.com from whom earlier correspondence was made. The letter dated December 18, 2017 was also served on the Noticee-1 by way of hand delivery and as per postal records. However, Noticee-1 or Noticee 2 on behalf of Noticee 1 neither responded to the aforementioned letter of SEBI nor attended the personal hearing. For the reasons mentioned above, I observe that the Noticees were provided with ample opportunity of being heard in the interest of natural justice. I am therefore proceeding with the inquiry taking into account the material / information made available on record CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS

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.

Analyse this matter in Ontology · Plans

Source: SecMarx — sebi:EAD/KS/VB/AO/65-69/2017-18. 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.