sebi:WTM/AB/WRO/WRO/21089/2022-23

SEBI · SEBI · 2021-07-02 · Ananta Barua, Whole Time Member

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

Facts / Headnote

Directions issued - joint and several refund of fees for unregistered investment advisory activities, public notice, asset/bank restraint, and 6-month securities market debarment

Provisions invoked

• s. 19
• s. 12(1)
• s. 27

Regulations

• Reg. 2(1)(l)
• Reg. 3(1)
• Reg. 2(1)(m)

Parties

• Shri Ajay Singh Ranawat
• Capital Raise and Research

Holding

Shri Ajay Singh Ranawat, proprietor of Capital Raise and Research, acted as an investment adviser without SEBI registration in violation of Section 12(1) of SEBI Act read with Regulation 3(1) of IA Regulations, 2013, and was directed to jointly and severally refund consideration received, deposit any balance with SEBI, and remain debarred/restrained as directed.

Full text

Final Order in the matter of Shri Ajay Singh Ranawat, proprietor of Capital Raise and Research Page 1 of 12 WTM/AB/WRO/WRO/21089/2022-23 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Final Order in the matter of Shri Ajay Singh Ranawat, proprietor of Capital Raise and Research Page 2 of 12 hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Noticees”). In the aforementioned complaint, it was, inter alia, alleged that CRR fraudulently promised Rs. 25 lakh return and took Rs. 5 lakh from the complainant with fake names and fake phone calls. ii. The SEBI examination noted that the website of the Noticees i.e. www.capitalraise.in was active as on December 07, 2020 but had become inactive at the time of issuance of SCN. iii. The complainant has alleged that he had received investment advisory services from the Noticees and made payment to the Noticees for providing the services. The payment made by the complainant on July 24, 2020, was observed to have been credited in the Bandhan Bank Account of the Noticees. iv. It was further observed that the Noticees were involved in providing unregistered investment advisory services without obtaining registration from SEBI as required under Section 12(1) of SEBI Act read with regulation 3(1) of IA Regulations, 2013.

Final Order in the matter of Shri Ajay Singh Ranawat, proprietor of Capital Raise and Research Page 3 of 12 aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed. [Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh AIR 1992 SC 1604 : State of M.P. vs. Hiralal & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 523 and V. Raja Kumari vs. P. Subbarama Naidu & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 774 ]. … ….”

Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/AB/WRO/WRO/21089/2022-23. 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.