sebi:Order/SM/VC/2018-19/49-55
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticees held liable for failure to comply with SEBI's Final Order dated September 14, 2015; penalty imposed jointly and severally on all seven Noticees under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15H
- s. 55A
- s. 73
- s. 15J
- s. 28A
- s. 67(3)
- s. 67
- s. 56
- s. 73(2)
- s. 465
- s. 2(36)
- s. 60
Parties
- Life Care Infra Tech Limited
- Mr. Yogendra Pratap Shahi
- Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh
- Mr. Bhardwaj Muni Tripathi
- Mr. Ramashish Singh
- Mr. Harendra Kumar Upadhyay
- Mr. Satyendra Rai
Holding
The Noticees, including Life Care Infra Tech Limited and its six directors, failed to comply with the directions of SEBI's Final Order dated September 14, 2015 requiring refund of RPS monies with 15% interest within three months, and are jointly and severally liable for penalty under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act. Noticee 7 (Mr. Satyendra Rai) was held to be an 'officer in default' as he was a director during the period funds were raised.
Full text
Page 2 of 25 Preference Shares (‘RPS’) to 2,603 investors and had mobilized an aggregate amount of Rs. 4,89,77,500/- as of March 31, 2013, under various plans and schemes. It was therefore observed by SEBI that Life Care had issued RPS to more than 49 persons and therefore, the company had to compulsorily list such securities on a recognized stock exchange in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Companies Act’). In view of the failure on the part of Life Care to comply with the statutory provisions of law w.r.t the issuance of RPS, it was observed that Life Care had made a public issue of RPS without adhering to the requirements of the Companies Act.
Page 3 of 25 proceedings), were prohibited from mobilizing any further funds from the investors through the issue of RPS or any other kind of securities, to the public and/or invite subscription, in any manner whatsoever, either directly or indirectly till further orders. Among other directions that were issued through the aforementioned interim order, Noticees were also prohibited from diverting any funds or alienating any assets/properties, Noticees were directed to provide full inventory of their assets/properties, Noticees were restrained from accessing/dealing in securities market etc.
Page 4 of 25 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adjudication Rules') to inquire into and adjudge under the provisions of section 15HB of the SEBI Act for the alleged failure on the part of the Noticees to comply with the directions contained in the final order dated September 14, 2015, within the specified time period. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL 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:Order/SM/VC/2018-19/49-55. 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.