TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. Aggrieved by the slew of directions issued by the Whole Time Member ('WTM' for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) dated October 28, 2016 in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 11(1), 11(4), 11A and 11B read with section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and regulation 107 read with regulation 111 of the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 ('ICDR Regulations' for short) against the present appellants, the present appeal is filed. 2. In short, the WTM directed that the present appellants along with other directors and Green India Infra Projects Limited ('GIIPL' for short) shall make full repayment of the money collected through is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt of India had directed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation in the overall affairs of the GIIPL. 6. Other noticees including the present appellant Mr. Debasis Padhy and Panchanan Pradhan appeared before the WTM. They placed their respective cases before the WTM. The WTM, however, passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. Appeal No. 6 of 2017:- 7. Appellant Mr. Debasis Padhy right from October 29, 2015 till July 29, 2016 either sought time to file written submissions or went on requesting that the hearing be conducted at Bhuvaneshwar. He had, however, sent his written submissions vide letter dated October 29, 2015 and July 29, 2016. In these letters cum submissions the appellant submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied on decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Sayanti Sen vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Appeal No. 163 of 2018 decided on August 9, 2019) and Pritha Bag vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Appeal No. 291 of 2017 decided on February 14, 2019) and submitted that the appeal be allowed. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent relying on the material as discussed detailed earlier submitted that the appellant was the promoter of GIIPL. The two other private limited companies were group companies of GIIPL and therefore the appellant cannot take benefit of other provisions or decisions of this Tribunal. 11. According to us, it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant is the promoter of GIIPL. He was admittedly the dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....change has been preferred under section 22 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), such allotment shall not be void until the dismissal of the appeal. 73(2) Where the permission has not been applied under sub-section (1), or, such permission having been applied for, has not been granted as aforesaid, the company shall forthwith repay without interest all moneys received from applicants in pursuance of the prospectus, and, if any such money is not repaid within eight days after the company becomes liable to repay it, the company and every director of the company who is an officer in default shall, on and from the expiry of the eighth day, be jointly and severally liable to repay that money with interest at such rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 19, 2016 submitted before the WTM that GIIPL did not issue SOCDs to the private entities but only to the two companies (supra). He had not participated in the affairs of the GIIPL directly or indirectly in the issue of SOCDs. He has not mobilized funds through the issue of SOCDs and therefore he should be exonerated. 17. The WTM found that present appellant Panchanan Pradhan was original subscriber to the Memorandum of Association as well as promoter of the GIIPL. He was director during the relevant period of GIIPL and moreover director / promoter in the group companies of GIIPL to whom the SOCDs were issued which, in turn, were issued to the number of private entities as detailed (supra). Therefore, applying the reasons as applied to t....