sebi:WTM/MPB/EFD-1-DRA-IV/05/2017
Facts / Headnote
Directions issued against the past directors of MADL: joint and several refund of monies with 15% p.a. interest, public notice, inventory of assets, market restraint for four years from completion of refunds, and prohibition from associating with listed/public companies raising money from public.
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 27
- s. 55A
- s. 73
- s. 28A
- s. 4A
- s. 67(3)
- s. 67
- s. 56
- s. 73(2)
- s. 291
- s. 73(1)
- s. 2(36)
- s. 60
- s. 67(1)
- s. 27(2)
- s. 56(1)
- s. 56(3)
- s. 67(2)
- s. 56(4)
Regulations
- Reg. 107
Parties
- Shri Ajigul Haque
- Shri Seikh Sarafat Ali
- Shri Arup Bhattacharya
- Shri Sheik Saukat Ali
Holding
The past directors of MADL (Shri Ajigul Haque, Shri Seikh Sarafat Ali, Shri Arup Bhattacharya and Shri Sheik Saukat Ali) are liable for violations of sections 56, 60 and 73 of the Companies Act, 1956 committed by the Company in its offer and issue of RPS to 237 persons, and are jointly and severally liable to refund the monies collected with 15% p.a. interest, and are restrained from accessing the securities market.
Full text
Page 2 of 16 against MADL and its Directors, Shri Sekh Sahadat Ali, Shri Abu Taleb Mohammod, and Shri Tushar Kanti Kanti Samanta, whereby it was held that the Company was engaged in fund mobilizing activity from the public through its offer and issuance of RPS to 237 persons during FY 2010-11 raising Rs. 25 lakh. The Final Order conclusively held that the aforesaid offer and issuance of securities was a ‘public issue’ and the Company had failed to comply with the public issue norms mandated under section 56, section 60 read with section 2(36) and section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with section 27(2) of SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).
Page 3 of 16 56 and Section 73 of the Companies Act read with Section 27(2) of SEBI Act were not complied with by the past directors of MADL, namely, Shri Ajigul Haque, Shri Seikh Sarafat Ali, Shri Arup Bhattacharya and Shri Sheik Saukat Ali.
Page 4 of 16 Order. The order further stated the concerned persons may also indicate whether they desired to avail themselves an opportunity of personal hearing on a date and time to be fixed on a specific request made in that regard.
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:WTM/MPB/EFD-1-DRA-IV/05/2017. 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.