sebi:WTM/MPB/ISD/55/2018
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Directions contained in the Interim Order dated September 26, 2017 confirmed against DIDL
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 186
Parties
- M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited
Holding
SEBI confirmed the directions contained in the Interim Order dated September 26, 2017 against M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited, including the forensic audit and restrictions on promoters/directors, as the company failed to submit third party verifiable documentary evidence to contradict the prima facie findings of the Interim Order.
Full text
Order in the matter of M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited Page 2 of 21 allowed under strict monitoring so that investors could take informed investment decisions, till SEBI and Exchanges complete their detailed examination of such companies.
Order in the matter of M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited Page 3 of 21 b. Misuse of the books of accounts / funds including facilitation of accommodation entries, if any. iii. The promoters and directors in DIDL are permitted only to buy the securities of DIDL. The shares held by the promoters and directors in DIDL shall not be allowed to be transferred for sale, by depositories. iv. The other actions envisaged in SEBI’s letter dated August 07, 2017 in para 1 (d), as may be applicable, and the consequential action taken by Stock Exchanges shall continue to have effect against M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited.
Order in the matter of M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited Page 4 of 21 Rs.3.20 crore given to E-City Projects Lucknow Private Limited. The company has provided the agreement entered dated August 01, 2014 between DIDL and E-City Projects Lucknow Private Limited. However, company has failed to reply on “link to business”. A review of the agreement indicates that DIDL has invested in a real estate / development project on a profit share basis which prima facie is not in line with its stated objective. Taken together, these investments comprise more than 46% of the assets of the company. Thus, there appears to be prima facie evidence of misrepresentation of the business of the company.
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/ISD/55/2018. 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.