sebi:WTM/SM/IVD/ID9/6143/2019-20

SEBI · SEBI · 2009-04-01 · S K Mohanty, 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 all Noticees disposed of without any direction; charges held not established

Provisions invoked

Regulations

Parties

Holding

The allegation that JKIL fraudulently self-financed its own preferential issue of convertible warrants by directly/indirectly funding 8 promoter allottees in violation of Section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations was held not established, and the proceedings against all Noticees were disposed of without any direction.

Full text

Order in the matter of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Page 2 of 25 BACKGROUND 1. M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Company” / “JKIL/Noticee no. 1”) is engaged in the business of civil engineering construction contracts in Infrastructure sector. The scrip of JKIL is listed on BSE India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “BSE”) and National Stock Exchange of India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “NSE”). Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) conducted an investigation pertaining to issue of convertible warrants by JKIL for the period April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010.

Order in the matter of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Page 3 of 25 who in turn, used the said transferred amounts to pay their respective dues towards 75% of the share application money, by exercising their options to convert the warrants into shares, allotted to them. During the course of investigation, JKIL, JKMM and JKSS were asked to provide reasons for the aforesaid funds transfers between them. In response to the same, it was submitted that JKIL had taken advances from JKMM and JKSS and the funds transferred from JKIL to JKSS and JKMM were repayment of those advances. It was also stated that the advances were taken for business purposes and since the entities were largely under the same management, no formal agreements were entered into between them. However, JKIL could not give any other documentary proof to substantiate its claim about the receipt of advances and repayments thereof made by them to the other promoting entities. It was further revealed during the investigation that the Noticee no. 1 (JKIL) has reported different amounts of advances having received by it from its two promoter’s entities, viz:- JKMM and JKSS in the financial year ending 2010.

Order in the matter of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Page 4 of 25 allottees for the two months prior to the date of transfer of such funds by JKMM to their accounts, it was observed that except for the above noted fund transfers, there were no other transactions between JKMM and these individual preferential allottees. Further, it was observed that these preferential allottees did not have enough balance in their bank accounts to pay for the preferential allotment and only the funds transferred by JKIL enabled JKMM and the other six individual promoters preferential allottees to pay for their respective dues against the preferential allotments received by them. The particulars of the afore-stated funds transfers from JKIL to JKMM and from JKMM to six individual promoters are as under: -

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/SM/IVD/ID9/6143/2019-20. 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.