sebi:WTM/AS/EFD1/EFD1_DRA4/31382/2025-26

SEBI · SEBI · 2017-04-05 · Amarjeet Singh, 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

Proceedings against the Noticee disposed of, without issuance of any direction.

Provisions invoked

• s. 19
• s. 73
• s. 28A
• s. 67(3)
• s. 56
• s. 73(2)
• s. 60
• s. 27(2)

Parties

• Mr. Aman Kumar

Holding

The proceedings against Mr. Aman Kumar were disposed of without any direction, on the ground that he was not an 'officer who is in default' under Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956, and therefore liability under Section 73(2) could not be invoked against him.

Full text

Order in respect of Mr. Aman Kumar in the matter of Trustline Realty Infra India Limited. Page 2 of 8 referred to as “Final Order”), in respect of the Noticee (Mr. Aman Kumar) was passed by SEBI. The Final Order passed by SEBI, inter alia, observed that the Noticee was one of the directors of the Company during the time when the company offered and issued RPS to the public.

Order in respect of Mr. Aman Kumar in the matter of Trustline Realty Infra India Limited. Page 3 of 8 (hereinafter referred to as “the SAT”) and appealed against the Order. The Noticee, inter alia, contended before Hon’ble SAT that he was one of the directors and all acts and deeds were done by the Promoter-Managing Director, Mr. Mohammad Qamar. It was also contended that since the Noticee was not the Promoter-Director of the Company, the Order was not maintainable qua the Noticee. In view of the same, the Hon’ble SAT, vide order dated September 13, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the SAT Order”), remitted the matter to SEBI for reconsidering the matter afresh.

Order in respect of Mr. Aman Kumar in the matter of Trustline Realty Infra India Limited. Page 4 of 8 only three persons are shown as directors (i.e., Mohammad Qamar, Susweta Dutta, Md. Mojahd) with effect from February 17, 2011.; c. The Noticee was neither a promoter nor a director in the Company and thus, he cannot be held liable for the violations committed by the Company. d. Since the date of incorporation of the Company is February 17, 2011, the Noticee could not have become a director in the Company on February 4, 2011; e. In terms of section 5(g) of the Companies Act, the Managing Director shall be the officer in default and not everyone can be dragged into litigation. In this regard, reliance in placed on the decision of the Hon’ble SAT in the matter of Sayanti Sen Vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 163 of 2018); f. The Noticee was an employee of the Company at a nominal salary of ₹5000/- and was discharging clerical work like arranging papers and files, etc.; g. Although the SCN is based on complaints received by SEBI, details of the said complaints have not been shared with the Noticee. The SCN has also failed to disclose any unresolved grievance of the allottees; h. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered by the Bankmore Police Station, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. However, the same was disposed of by the concerned judicial magistrate as no case was made out qua the Noticee; i. The Noticee has not made any monetary gains and has not gained any unfair advantage. The SCN has also f

Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/AS/EFD1/EFD1_DRA4/31382/2025-26. 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.