High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
Sachin Gupta & Others
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India & Another
Crl. A. Nos. 563, 567, 573 of 2010
Decided On : 24-02-2014
Collective Investment Scheme - SEBI Act, 1992 - Section 12(1B), SEBI CIS Regulations, 1999 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the definition of Collective Investment Scheme under Section 2(ba) and the conditions specified in Section 11AA(2) of the SEBI Act, 1992. It also referred to the SEBI CIS Regulations, 1999, including Regulations 69, 73, and 74, and highlighted the obligations of existing CIS and the requirements for repayment to investors. The court emphasized the contravention of Section 12(1B) and the Regulations by the company, leading to its conviction under Sections 24 and 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Fact of the Case:
The Glitter Gold Plantation Limited and its directors were convicted for contravening the SEBI Act, 1992 and the SEBI CIS Regulations, 1999 by collecting funds under a Collective Investment Scheme without registration and failing to comply with SEBI's directions for refunding the money to investors. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the company guilty of contravening Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and the SEBI CIS Regulations, leading to its conviction under Sections 24 and 27. The directors, Pankaj Jain and Deepak Jain, were held vicariously liable for the company's contravention and were directed to undergo imprisonment and pay fines. The subscribers, Sachin Gupta and Yashwant Jain, were acquitted due to lack of evidence of their involvement.
Issues: The key issues involved the determination of whether the scheme operated by the company constituted a Collective Investment Scheme, the company's contravention of SEBI regulations, the vicarious liability of the directors, and the sufficiency of the refund to investors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the company's Teak Unit Schemes constituted a Collective Investment Scheme, and its failure to obtain registration and comply with SEBI's directions constituted a contravention of the SEBI Act and Regulations. The directors were held vicariously liable for the company's actions. The court also emphasized the continuous nature of the offence until full compliance with SEBI's regulations and directions.
Final Decision: The company's appeal was dismissed, and the directors were directed to surrender for imprisonment and pay fines. The subscribers, Sachin Gupta and Yashwant Jain, were acquitted. The court emphasized the company's failure to refund the full amount to investors and the lack of evidence supporting the claimed repayments.
V.K. Jain, J.
1. The appellant No.1 in Crl. A. No.567/2010, Glitter Gold Plantation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company‘), came to be incorporated on 31.1.1997 and appellants 2 & 3, Pankaj Jain & Deepak Jain are its Directors. The appellant in Crl. A. No.563/2010, namely Sachin Gupta and the appellant in Crl. A. No.573/2010, Yashwant Jain, are stated to be the subscribers to the memorandum of the aforesaid Company though they are not its Directors. The Company, as per the history provided to Securities & Exchange Board of India (for short ‘SEBI‘), vide communication (Ex.CW1/1), was engaged in Teak plantation activities and it offered opportunity to the members of the public to invest in Teak saplings on the land owned or leased directly or on behalf of others. The Company commenced its business on 9.2.1997. It came out with the schemes named as Glitter Teak Unit 1 and Glitter Teak Unit II and collected Rs.14.06 lakh from the investors till 30.11.1997. It was stated in the Brochure that the Company shall give Teak trees to the unit holders after 20 years and the share per unit, which at the time of offer was 2,500/-, was likely to be Rs.3.00 lakh per unit at the time Teak trees are given to the investors. Thus, it was represented to the investors that investment of Rs.2,500/- was likely to grow to Rs.3.00 lakh in 20 years.
2. Section 12 (1B) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘), which came to be inserted w.e.f. 25.1.1995, provides that no person shall sponsor or cause to be sponsored or carry on or cause to be carried on any venture capital funds or collective investment scheme (for short ‘CIS‘) including mutual funds, unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ‘SEBI) in accordance with the regulations. The proviso to the aforesaid sub-section, permits any person, sponsoring or causing to be sponsored, carrying or causing to be carried on any such fund or scheme operating in the security market immediately before 25.1.1995, for which no certificate of registration was required prior to the said date, to continue to operate till such time Regulations are made under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 30.
3. Vide press release dated 18.11.1997, the Government of India conveyed that instruments such as agro bonds, plantation bonds, etc. shall be treated as CIS coming under the Act and SEBI was asked to formulate its Regulations for such schemes.
Pursuant to the SEBI press release dated 26.11.1997 and/or notice 18.12.1997, the Company furnished information with respect to its above-referred scheme to SEBI. Vide aforesaid information, the Company informed SEBI about Rs.14.06 lakh raised by it by way of its Glitter Teak Unit 1 and Glitter Teak Unit II which according to SEBI are Collective Investment Schemes (CIS). The information sent to SEBI was signed by the appellant S.K. Jain, Managing Director of the Company and the appellant Pankaj Jain, who was stated to be a whole time Director of the Company.
Vide letter received by SEBI on 29.4.1998, the Company, through Shri Pankaj Jain, whole time Director, furnished additional information to SEBI which included the copies of its balance sheet, a compliance certificate and a statement of deployment of funds mobilized under various schemes. The balance sheet was signed by the Managing Director Shri S.K. Jain and the while time Director Shri Pankaj Jain. It was also stated in the said information that Shri Deepak Jain was also a Director of the Company and that he was a businessman. The compliance certificate submitted to SEBI was signed by Shri Pankaj Jain.
4. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as =the Regulations‘) came to be notified on 15.10.1999. In terms of the requirement of the Regulations, SEBI vide its letters dated 15.12.1999/29.12.1999 and by way of a public notice dated 10.12.1999, req
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.