TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 passed by the Central Government. By the impugned orders, the petitioners have been directed to pay dividend for the financial year 1996-97 to respondent No. 2 - Asian Institute of Transport Department (hereinafter referred to as AITD, for short). 2. AITD is an NGO which had applied and was issued Units under the Ind Jyothi Scheme, 1990 (Plan A) (hereinafter referred as the said Scheme, for short) promoted and floated by the petitioners. It is admitted by the petitioners that as per Plan 'A' the unit holders were assured of minimum return as per the offer document. The minimum assured return was as under : 1st year Date of allotment to 31-3-1992 12.75% 2nd year 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993 13.25% 3rd year 1-4-1993 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on the date when dividend was declared are entitled to dividend distribution. Secondly, it is submitted that the respondent No. 2, AITD, while applying for repurchase of the units had relinquished and given up all claims. 6. It is undisputed that under the said scheme, the petitioners had promised assured returns at the rates specified above. The petitioners do not contest and accept the said position. It is also accepted that for the financial year 1996-97, the petitioners did not abide by their promise and pay dividend as assured under the said scheme. In these circumstances, I do not think the petitioners can rely upon clause 16(e) of the rules and regulations of the said scheme, which reads as under : "16(e) Such of the Ind Jyot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d given up and relinquished their claim on the listed units and had authorized the petitioners to deal with the units. The clause does not make specific reference to right to assured returns which was promised by the petitioners and the right to dividend. 10. The petitioners have accepted the said position in their letter dated 9th June, 1999 written to the Chairman, SEBI. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as under : "Ind Jyothi scheme was approved by Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 6th August, 1990 and was launched on 1st December, 1990. At the end of the scheme period, the units of both the plans of the scheme (Plan A and Plan B) were redeemed at net asset value as on 31st March, 1998 in addition to the payment of as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when Ind Jyothi matter was referred to the Bank's legal advisors, they had advised that it would be perfectly in order to meet the assured dividend liability out of the net assets of the scheme itself. Inspite of this position, Indian Bank decided not to deplete the NAV and went ahead with the finding of Rs. 43.59 crores to meet the assured dividend liability over and above the net asset value of the scheme at the time of redemption. This decision was taken by Indian Bank solely with the purpose of protecting the interest of the investors, in compliance with the directions of SEBI and to maintain the image of a public sector organization. Asian Institute of Transport Development (AITD) AITD, Delhi was holding 10 lakhs units worth Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the respondent No. 2, AITD, the petitioners have categorically agreed that they would pay the dividend as per the assured return for the financial year 1996-97 as the units had been purchased after the end of the said financial year on 25th September, 1997. Accordingly, it is accepted position that no dividend is payable to the respondent No. 2, AITD, for the financial year 1997-98 but the same is payable for the financial year 1996-97. 12. Both SEBI and Central Government have accepted the plea and contention of respondent No. 2, AITD, after referring to the relevant clauses of the scheme and upon interpretation of the same. They have also specifically referred to the letter dated 9th June, 1999. The impugned orders cannot be said to ....