sebi:EAD-2/SS/AKS/2018-19/1217-1219
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Charges established; monetary penalty imposed under section 15HB of the SEBI Act on three Noticees (Noticee No. 4 having expired)
Provisions invoked
- s. 11A
- s. 15
- s. 12
- s. 15H
- s. 15I
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 108
Parties
- Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Limited (Noticee No. 1)
- Noticee No. 2
- Noticee No. 3
- Noticee No. 4 (expired 13.02.2014)
Holding
The Noticees violated the directions of SEBI's interim order dated October 31, 2013 by diverting funds from the company's bank accounts and by collecting rearing fees from investors after the order. The Adjudicating Officer found the charges established and deemed the case fit to impose monetary penalty under section 15HB of the SEBI Act.
Full text
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication Order in respect of Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Limited (File No.: EAD-2/SS/AKS/24/35/2018-19) Page 2 of 17 October 31, 2013. Accordingly, SEBI conducted an inspection of books of accounts and other records of Noticee No.1 on March 27, 2014. In course of inspection, it was observed that the company had diverted funds from its bank account (s) and also had accepted rearing fee after the passing of the SEBI Order dated October 31, 2013 as indicated from the increase in revenue from livestock farming in the company’s Profit and Loss Statement. These acts of the company were observed to be in violation of SEBI order dated October 31, 2013.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication Order in respect of Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Limited (File No.: EAD-2/SS/AKS/24/35/2018-19) Page 3 of 17
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication Order in respect of Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Limited (File No.: EAD-2/SS/AKS/24/35/2018-19) Page 4 of 17 Act, as there are no Collective Investment Schemes managed by the company….. The Company does not manage any scheme or arrangement on behalf of any investors…… As there is no CIS, the question of control and management of the scheme does not arise”. e. “……The directions in the said SEBI order are based on conjectures and premises that the company has ‘investors’ who invest in ‘schemes’ and that the Company is involved in ‘fund mobilizing activity, which is incorrect”. f. “….As regards the direction to submit a full inventory of all assets of the Company….. It is reiterated that none of the assets of the Company have been bought out of amounts collected from its customers. The customers of the Company are not its “investors”. Moreover, a list of all the Company’s assets has been stated in the Annual Accounts which have already been submitted to SEBI”. g. “….The Company has fully complied with the directions contained in the SEBI Order dated October 31, 2013. We submit that the Company has not diverted any funds from its bank accounts. We request you to forward us details of any such transaction contemplating fund diversion so as to enable us to clarify the same….” h. “….we submit that during the inspection by SEBI Officials on March 27, 2014, the Company had submitted det
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:EAD-2/SS/AKS/2018-19/1217-1219. 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.