sebi:WTM/RKA/EFD/180/2016

SEBI · SEBI · Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, 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

Company and five directors found liable for violations; directed to jointly and severally refund subscription money with 15% p.a. interest within three months, restrained from capital market access for four years or till refund, whichever is later; debenture trustee found guilty of unregistered activity and restrained for four years.

Provisions invoked

Regulations

Parties

Holding

The company and five directors were held liable for making a deemed public issue of NCRSDs in violation of the Companies Act, 1956 and ILDS Regulations, and were directed to jointly and severally refund subscription money with 15% p.a. interest within three months, with market restraints for four years or till refund, whichever is later. Equinox Debenture Trust and Mrs. Arpita Chakraborty were found guilty of acting as unregistered debenture trustees in violation of Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 7 of the Debenture Trustee Regulations.

Full text

Order in respect of Equinox Infratech Limited Page 2 of 14 (ii) “..Equinox is prima facie engaged in fund mobilising activity from the public, through the Offer of NCRSDs and as a result of the aforesaid activity has violated the aforementioned provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (Section 56, Section 60 read with Section 2(36), Section 73, Section 117B, Section 117C) and the Debt Securities Regulations.”

Order in respect of Equinox Infratech Limited Page 3 of 14 Offer of NCRSDs of Equinox and also from taking up any new assignment or involvement in any new issue of debentures, etc. in a similar capacity, from the date of this order till further directions.”

Order in respect of Equinox Infratech Limited Page 4 of 14 Administration, Investor Relation and Business Process functions. He is neither a promoter nor an equity share holder and does not have any pecuniary relationship with the Board/company. He did not attend AGM or EGM of the company. He contended that the contemplated direction to make refunds does not apply to him as the same pertained to ‘officers in default’. With respect to the restraint imposed in respect of dealing in securities, he submitted that he made some investments prior to his joining the company and the same were present in his demat account. He therefore contended that his personal investments are not connected to 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.

Analyse this matter in Ontology · Plans

Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/RKA/EFD/180/2016. 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.