Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (7) TMI 1006

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('SEBI Act'). Quashing has been sought primarily on the ground that the petitioner was neither a Director nor a person-in-charge of and responsible to the company Janraksha Green Forests Limited for conduct of its business nor did he have any connection whatsoever with the said company. 2. The Government of India, in order to regulate entities which used to issue instruments such as Agro Bonds, Plantation Bonds etc., decided to treat such schemes as 'Collective Instrument Schemes' and brought them under the purview of SEBI Act, 1992, with the object of protecting the investors and promoting investment activities. SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 were thus framed by SEBI. The Regulat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... led to the filing of the complaint against the accused company and its Directors, including the petitioner, under section 24(1) read with section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992. It is alleged that the petitioner was one of the Directors and person-in-charge of and responsible to the accused No. 1 company for conduct of its business, as such, he is also liable for the offence in view of section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992. 5. Ms. Beenshaw Soni, Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is a case of mistaken identity and the complaint against the petitioner is liable to be quashed for the reason that petitioner was never a Director of the accused company, rather he had no connection whatsoever with said company. In support of this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has drawn my attention to copy of letter dated 29-4-1998 purported to have been sent by Managing Director of respondent No. 2 company to SEBI whereby he had forwarded Memorandum of Articles and Articles of Association, Balance sheet for the year 1996-97, List of Directors and the Certificate. Perusal of the copy of list of Directors annexed to the letter would show that Varinder Dhand s/o Prem Dhand has been shown as one of the Directors of the Company. Respondent No. 1 has also placed on record another letter purportedly sent by the Managing Director of the accused company to SEBI vide which list of Directors with the details of their assets was forwarded. In the said l....