sebi:EAD-7/BJD/NJMR/2019-20/4227-4239
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 11
- s. 15
- s. 12A
- s. 12
- s. 62
- s. 63
- s. 15H
- s. 27
- s. 55A
- s. 15I
- s. 15J
- s. 28A
- s. 58A
- s. 149(12)
- s. 58
- s. 149
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 5
- Reg. 2(1)(b)
- Reg. 3(b)
- Reg. 2(1)
- Reg. 57
- Reg. 57(1)
- Reg. 60(4)
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 47
- Reg. 55
- Reg. 8
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that IGSL and its signatories to the Prospectus violated SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, SEBI Act, and SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations by failing to disclose bridge loans and deposits and by making untrue statements in the Prospectus, while dismissing the allegation of mis-utilization of IPO proceeds for working capital.
Full text
Adjudication Order in the matter of Inventure Growth & Securities Ltd., Page 2 of 69 13. Bhavi Rahul Gandhi (PAN: APGPG9247J) C-405,Gokul Garden Thakur Complex, Kandivali (E) Mumbai 400 101
Adjudication Order in the matter of Inventure Growth & Securities Ltd., Page 3 of 69 4. The investigation revealed that IGSL failed to utilize the IPO proceeds for the purpose as stated in the Prospectus, made false statements with regard to raising bridge loans and failed to make disclosures regarding acceptance of deposits under Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, in its RHP and Prospectus. Further, the investigation also brought out that the Signatories to the Prospectus made untrue statement regarding availing of bridge loans and acceptance of deposits by IGSL. Therefore, it was alleged that IGSL (Noticee 1) and signatories to the Prospectus viz., Nagji K Rita (Notice 2), Virendra Dudhnath Singh (Noticee 3), Kanji B Rita (Noticee 4), Vinod Kanji Shah (Noticee 5), Pravin N Gala (Noticee 6), Arun N Joshi (Noticee 7), Jambunathan Srinivasa Iyer (Noticee 8), Harshavardhan Marotrao Gajbhiye (Noticee 9), Ajay Khera (Noticee 10), Deepak M Vaishnav (Noticee 11), Arvind Gala (Noticee 12) and Bhavi Rahul Gandhi (Noticee 13) had violated the provisions of Regulations 57 (1) and 57 (2) (a) read with Clause 2 (VII) (G) and (XVI) (B) (2) of part A of schedule VIII and 60 (4) of the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI (ICDR) Regulations”), Section 12 A (a),(b),(c) of SEBI Act,1992 and Regulations 3 (b),(c),(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(f), (k) and (r) of the SEBI (Prohibition
Adjudication Order in the matter of Inventure Growth & Securities Ltd., Page 4 of 69 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND HEARING
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-7/BJD/NJMR/2019-20/4227-4239. 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.