sebi:WTM/PS/82/CIS-NRO/NOV/2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Dhanolty Developers Limited and its 7 directors/promoters held to have floated unregistered Collective Investment Schemes; directed to abstain from collecting money, wind up existing CIS and refund with returns within three months plus repayment report, not alienate assets except for refunds, provide full inventory of assets/bank/demat accounts, and restrained from securities market for 4 years with extended restraint and references for civil/criminal, MCA winding-up and attachment on default.
Provisions invoked
- s. 11A
- s. 24
- s. 19
- s. 12
Regulations
- Reg. 65
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 4(2)(t)
Parties
- Dhanolty Developers Limited
- Mr. Sanjay Walia
- Mr. Siddharth Walia
- Ms. Anita Malik
- Ms. Raksha Kumari
- Mr. Shiv Pratap Singh
- Ms. Shefali Walia
- Mr. Pankaj Bakshi
Holding
The sale/purchase and development of agricultural land and sale and rearing of Bee Colony plans of Dhanolty Developers Limited are Collective Investment Schemes under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, floated without SEBI registration in violation of Section 12(1B) and Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations and constituting fraud under Regulation 4(2)(t) of the PFUTP Regulations. The company and its directors/promoters were directed to wind up the schemes, refund investors with returns, and were restrained from the securities market for four years.
Full text
Page 2 of 25 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIS Regulations’). The mobilization of funds from the public, was also prima facie found to be a fraudulent practice in terms of Regulation 4(2)(t) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulations’).
Page 3 of 25 Hon’ble High Courts of Jharkhand, Delhi and Patna. He also said that the Company is not doing any business since April 2013 and he is not in a position to submit the details as asked vide the interim order as he is not in possession of the records. He requested for time to procure the records/ documents from the authorities so as to furnish the same to SEBI.
Page 4 of 25 - During her tenure as director of the Company she had not attended any board meeting or had passed any resolution in respect to the business of the Company. - She was the promoter of the Company and she was then merely a shareholder of the Company. - The day to day affairs of the Company were looked after by the directors of the Company and the promoters had no role to play in 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/PS/82/CIS-NRO/NOV/2015. 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.