Friday, July 19, 2013

Sai Prasad Foods Ltd. Has Been Orderd to Stop Chit Fund Scheme by SEBI

WTM/SR/ERO - CIS/ 14 /07 /2013

BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, MUMBAI
CORAM: S. RAMAN, WHOLE TIME MEMBER

ORDER


Under sections 11(1), 11B and 11(4) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulation 65 of the SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 in the matter of Sai Prasad Foods Ltd. and its Directors, Mr. Balasaheb K. Bhapkar, Mrs. Vandana B. Bhapkar and Mr. Shashank B. Bhapkar.

1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) had received a complaint dated June 2, 2010, alleging illegal mobilization of funds by M/s Sai Prasad Foods Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SPFL”).

2. As a matter of preliminary enquiry, SEBI, vide several letters sent during the period between June 2010 – October 2011, sought the following information from SPFL in relation to its business activity, viz. –

i. Structure of plans or schemes;
ii. Number of plans or schemes launched;
iii. Main terms and conditions of the plans or schemes;
iv. Names of the promoters, directors and key management personnel;
v. No. of investors and amount collected in each plan or scheme;
vi. Annual Reports and Financial Statements for the last 3 years;
vii. Details about past and present directors and promoters;
viii. Details of the plan-wise or scheme-wise amount mobilized till date alongwith the no. of investors under each plan or scheme;
ix. Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company, as filed with the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as "ROC");
x. Mode of advertisement or publicity for the plans or schemes offered and the details regarding such advertisement or publicity made.

3. During the period between June 2010 – October 2011, SPFL replied to SEBI vide several letters wherein it inter alia submitted the following information, viz.

i. Company profile;
ii. Advertising materials;
iii. Application form;
iv. Joint Venture Agreement and Allocation letters;
v. List of assets;
vi. List of re-payments made;
vii. Details regarding its Directors;
viii. Balance Sheet for the financial years 2007 – 2008, 2008 – 2009 and 2009 – 2010;
ix. Memorandum and Articles of Association.

4. Pursuant to receipt of the abovementioned information, SEBI vide letter dated March 29, 2012, informed SPFL that upon an analysis of such information, it appeared that its activities may fall under the purview of the SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "CIS Regulations") and therefore, the company may provide its comments in the matter on the applicability of the aforesaid regulations.

5. In reply to the abovementioned letter, SPFL vide letter dated April 29, 2012, submitted as under –

"… Section 11AA of the SEBI Act under which the conditions laid down for Collective
Investment Scheme indicated in your above letter do not fall under any of the provisions laid
down for the purpose of joint venture system of participation. In a joint venture, the necessary
elements are an express or implied agreement, common purpose with the group intends to carry
out for the business, share profits and losses, each member has an equal voice in controlling the
project."

6. Subsequently, SEBI received an Order dated July 13, 2012, of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench), as forwarded by the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance vide letter dated September 21, 2012. From the aforesaid order, which was passed in the matter of Dharmvir Singh and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 3332 of 2010 (PIL)], it was observed that –

i. The Petitioner therein i.e. Dharmvir Singh, had filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking order of enquiry against various financial companies including SPFL. The petitioners had pleaded that thousands of persons of various districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh had been cheated by various finance companies under the garb of various schemes, which used to collect deposits from the persons with a promise to pay the money back with higher return of interest from 15%-20%.

ii. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated July 5, 2011, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI") to conduct the preliminary investigation regarding the activities of such companies.

iii. The findings of the CBI in respect of SPFL (as contained in the abovementioned order dated July 13, 2012, of the Hon’ble High Court) were as follows:

a. "The details regarding the number of customers of the company, total land bank, the land allotted to the customer and sale deed executed were requested from the company M/s Sai Prasad Foods Ltd. and as per the details provided by the company, it has revealed that there are total 6,71,121 customers with the company in which 26,077 are under one-time payment plan while 6,45,044 are under installment plan. Further, only 102 customers have been issued allotment letters and the land allotted against these allotment letters is 1,31,145 sq. ft. No sale deed has been executed by the company with any of its customers while 34,278 have been given refund claims on completion of the agreement period.

b. Both the companies (SPFL and its one group company viz. M/s Sai Prasad Properties Ltd.) follow a hierarchy of agents involving 10 levels, for the purpose of getting business. These are from the level of Field Representatives to the level of Chief Controller. The company also gives commission to senior up-line members on the business brought by the junior most level against the booking of plots. In case of installment payment plan, the commission percentage is 20% for the Field Representative in the first year, and further commission is distributed till the highest level of Chief Controller but goes on reducing upwards the hierarchy and is 2 per cent at the top most level. In the similar way under cash down payment plan this is 6 to 9% to the Field Representatives and is 0.5% at the top most level.

c. There have been several complaints against the company. 15 persons for 18 complaints (total 25 agreements) as mentioned in the Hon'ble High Court order, were examined during the course of enquiry. It was revealed that neither the company nor its representatives/agents have at any time intimated the investors that the plan being offered by the company is in anyway related to purchase of land in its name. Some investors emphasized that had it been in their knowledge that the money was for allotment of land units, they would have never gone in for the investment plans. They also said that they invested with the company as the plans of the company seemed to be lucrative in comparison to that of Government sponsored schemes. Further, only a few investors had the knowledge that the company will be investing their deposits in land and at the end of the maturity period they would be getting the amount as mentioned in the certificates issued by the company. No allotment letters were found issued by the company to any of its customers who had made the required payments. The amounts of the investors who had made complaints with the Collector, Gwalior have been refunded without interest by the company. Examination of one of the investors also revealed that the company has also floated yearly Income Scheme in its policies/plans.

d. Thus from the above it is indicated that the company is not actually into the business of sale of land as claimed by it but are receiving deposits and floating investment policies without registration with RBI."

iv. On the basis of the abovementioned CBI report, the Hon'ble High Court vide its Order dated July 13, 2012, observed that "the authorities of the organizations are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law." The Hon'ble High Court directed the Principal Registrar of that Court to forward the copy of the aforesaid order to the various authorities including SEBI to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

7. SEBI also received a reference dated December 4, 2012, from the Collectorate, Godda District, Jharkhand, alleging that the Sai Prasad Group of Companies was collecting money from the public in the name of “Joint Venture”, which appeared to be in the nature of "collective investment scheme".

8.1 The material available on record i.e. correspondences exchanged between SEBI and SPFL alongwith the documents contained therein; the Order dated July 13, 2012 of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court alongwith the reference dated December 4, 2012, have been perused. In this context, the issue for determination in the instant matter is whether the mobilization of funds by SPFL under “Joint Venture”, is a ‘collective investment scheme’ in accordance with section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI Act").

8.2 On an examination of the material available on record, it is prima facie observed that –

i. SPFL was incorporated on September 18, 2001 under the Companies Act, 1956 (CIN:U51909PN2001PTC016447) and has its registered office in Building CB–1, Empire Estate, Office No. 202/203, Chinchwad, Pune, Maharashtra – 411019. ii. As per the Memorandum of Association of SPPL, its main object is to carry on the business of manufacturing, processing, servicing and marketing of instant foods, fruit, agricultural and dairy products.

iii. SPFL has launched a scheme or arrangement having nomenclature “Joint Venture”, whereby it has invited participation from the public to borrow or raise money inter alia for meeting the object of its business.

iv. In pursuance of the “Joint Venture”, SPFL enters into an “Agreement for Joint Venture Ship” with “Associates” or investors, who are invited to contribute in the form of monetary payment or contribution (participation) to the various plans launched therein. Such contribution is dependent on the plan that an "associate" or investor may opt for. In this context, an illustration of instalment payment plan alongwith one-time payment plan offered under the “Joint Venture” is provided below –







v. When an "associate" or investor makes a contribution (participation) as per the instalment payment plan or one-time payment plan offered under the “Joint Venture”, wherever applicable, he is issued a Certificate of Investment (hereinafter referred to as “Certificate”) by SPFL inter alia indicating the contribution made by him. As against such contribution, the "associate" is promised a return (expected refund of participation) on maturity subject to the fulfillment of terms and conditions of the Certificate. At the end of the maturity period i.e. completion of relevant payment plan, the "associate" will be entitled to withdraw or renew the contribution indicated under the Certificate.

vi. In addition to the return offered under the relevant plan i.e. expected refund of participation, an "associate" is also offered accidental death compensation under the “Joint Venture”. Further, a letter of allocation of land is issued by SPFL to such "associate" as a guarantee to repay the contribution indicated in the Certificate. The land allocated is as per the ratio – 1 Unit or ý12000 equivalent to 500 sq. ft. area of land.

vii. From the “Agreement for Joint Venture Ship”, as entered into between SPFL and an "associate" or investor, the following clauses are noted –

a. “AND WHEREAS the company is hereby authorized to enter into Agreement for borrowing, to raise money or secure the payment of money by way of Joint Venture or otherwise in such manner as the company may determine, and further authorized to invest or otherwise employ the money belonging or entrusted to the company in movable or immovable properties or in securities or in such other manner as may be deemed expedient.

b. AND WHEREAS the company has launched schemes/ plans to borrow or raise money or to secure the payment of money and launch the various plans including the instalment, payment plans described in plan A, B, C and … and also onetime payment plan D, E and L for various periods in pursuance of rules and regulations made thereof including the expected sum payable on expiry of the said term and also consisting of the accidental compensation as contemplated in the said plans.

c. AND WHEREAS the company has launched schemes/plans and for issuing certificates to enable the company to raise the finance especially described in the plan A to E, K & L hereinafter described and the party of the Second part (Associate or Joint Venturer) came to know about the investment in said plan and agreed to join him in Joint Venture with a view to carryout and complete the said finance raising object as joint venture. The party of the second part has agreed to do so and parties have agreed to enter into this Venture ship Agreement on the terms and conditions mentioned herein".

d. The party of the second part has contributed with the company the sum of Rs. _____ onwards Rs. Only of the ____ certificate in category ___ plans dated _____ and on maturity the sum assured is payable to the extent of Rs. _____ and the party of the second part will contribute such further amounts as may be desired by him from time to time for carrying out the said work and the amounts will be treated as a participation made by him to the company in the participation plans of the company repayable to the party of the second part as per terms and conditions of the Certificate. (Clause 2)

e. The company will look after the financial side of the participation plans as well as look after the administration of the company and its said business and the party of the second part will have no nexus right of the shares or share capital of the company or to interfere in the company or the management and the policies of the company or/otherwise the board of directors will have sole and absolutely discretionary powers as per the companies laws. (Clause 4)

f. That the company has insured the life of Joint Venturer with the New India Insurance Company’s and subject to the rules and regulations framed in respect there of as described in Rule Book, in connection with investment plan certificate issued to Associate. (Clause 9)

g. That through this Agreement, the Company has as agreed, issued letter of allocation of land with a ratio of Rs. 12000 of participation equal to 500 sq. ft. of land but this ratio can be changed/altered solely at the discretion of management depending upon promotion the cost/value of lands at the time of agreement. (Clause 13)

h. It is further agreed by and between the parties that in case the company is unable to repay the expected return of participation of the plan, in that event only the Company would help the Associate/Joint Venturer to dispose of the allocated land at the written request of Associates as per process of law. (Clause 14)

i. The Joint Venturer shall continue his/its participation till the completion as per the certificate of the investment plans or if the investment plan is cancelled for any reason, till the cancellation of such certificates. (Clause 17)

j. It is agreed by & between the parties that this is Agreement for Joint Venture Associate and shall not be treated as partnership with the company by joint venture. Once repayment of participation is made to the associate then this agreement along with allocation letter will be automatically cancelled. (Clause 19)

k. Once full and final payment of said certificate is paid to the associates, this joint venture agreement automatically stands cancelled and said land allocated to the associates, becomes free from holding of associate and company thereafter has full holding of land. (Clause 24)” viii. From the Allocation Letter issued by SPFL to an "associate" under the “Agreement for Joint Venture Ship”, it is noted that –

a. “That the said Allocation Letter is issued as Guarantee/Warrantee to repay the amount of said investment plan as per the Certificate issued.

b. And that in case company goes in liquidation, then only the Joint Venturer has right and Company would help the Joint Venturer or Associate to dispose of the aforesaid allocated land at the request of Joint Venturer or Associate subject to law of land …”

8.3 The abovementioned details of the “Joint Venture” offered by SPFL, have to be considered in light of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, which reads as follows:

“(1) Any scheme or arrangement which satisfies the conditions referred to in subsection (2) shall be a collective investment scheme.

(2) Any scheme or arrangement made or offered by any company under which,

(i) the contributions, or payments made by the investors, by whatever name called, are pooled and utilized solely for the purposes of the scheme or arrangement;

(ii) the contributions or payments are made to such scheme or arrangement by the investors with a view to receive profits, income, produce or property, whether movable or immovable from such scheme or arrangement;

(iii) the property, contribution or investment forming part of scheme or arrangement, whether identifiable or not, is managed on behalf of the investors;

(iv) the investors do not have day to day control over the management and operation of the scheme or arrangement.”

8.4 In this context, I note that –

i. SPFL operates investment plans through the “Joint Venture”, which it offers to the public. The contribution made by "associates" or investors in response to the plans offered under the “Joint Venture” i.e. participation in the form of monthly instalments or onetime payment in lieu of units, are pooled and utilized for the purpose of such “Joint Venture”.

ii. Such contribution towards plans offered under the “Joint Venture” is made by an "associate" or investor with a view to receive profit or income in the form of expected refund of participation, on maturity. For example, an "associate" or investor opting for subscription to the Instalments Payment Plan A is required to make a total contribution of ý6000 over a period of 4 years and the expected return for such investment is ý7700. Accidental death compensation is also offered under the “Joint Venture”. In addition, a letter evidencing allocation of land wherein 1 unit or ý12000 of participation is equivalent to 500 sq. ft. area of land is issued by SPFL to the extent of contribution made by such "associate" or investor, for guaranteeing repayment as per the Certificate.

iii. The financial aspect of the “Joint Venture” i.e. contributions made by "associates" or investors under the various plans offered therein, are managed on their behalf, by SPFL.

iv. SPFL exercises complete managerial and administrative control over the plans offered under the “Joint Venture”.

8.5 In view of the above, I find that the “Joint Venture” offered by SPFL, has all the ingredients of a 'collective investment scheme' as defined in section 11AA of the SEBI Act.

9.1 Vide letters dated December 15, 2010 and April 12, 2012, SPFL has submitted that –

i. “We are not engaged in accepting public deposits, neither we advertise or publicize public deposits schemes. We do not have any investors & we have only associates who are participating in the joint venture ship against their participation values.”

ii. “Section 11AA of the SEBI Act under which the conditions laid down for Collective Investment Scheme … do not fall under any of the provisions laid down for the purpose of joint venture system of participation. In a joint venture, the necessary elements are an express or implied agreement, common purpose with the group intends to carry out for the business, share profits and losses, each member has an equal voice in controlling the project.”

9.2 I note that the categorization of any scheme or arrangement as “Joint Venture” is not determinative of its nature and character; the same has to be determined with reference to the terms and conditions of such scheme or arrangement, which indicate the intention of parties therein. In this regard, I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had occasion to consider the nature of ‘joint-venture' in New Horizons Ltd vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 478], wherein it observed:

“The expression ‘joint venture’ … connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share risks. It requires a community of interest in the performance of the subject matter, a right to direct and govern the policy in connection therewith, and duty, which may be altered by agreement, to share both in profit and losses. [Black's Law Dictionary; Sixth Edition, p. 839].”

9.3 Upon analysis of the instant “Joint Venture” offered by SPFL (in terms of the “Agreement for Joint Venture Ship”) in the context of the abovementioned observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I note the following –

i. The “Joint Venture” in question is not a partnership between SPFL and the "associate" for furtherance of a commercial enterprise, etc. but rather an arrangement which provides for a monetary return on the investment made by such "associate". Further, such “Joint Venture” stands cancelled after payment of monetary return on the investment made by the "associate"/investor.

ii. Under the instant “Joint Venture”, there is no shared control. The "associate" is excluded from the financial aspect of the “Joint Venture”. Further, such "associate" will have no right to interfere in the “Joint Venture” since SPFL exercises complete managerial and administrative control over the plans offered therein.

9.4 From the findings of the CBI (contained in the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court order dated July 13, 2012), it is noted that there are 6,71,121 "associates" or investors with SPFL in which 26,077 are under one-time payment plan while 6,45,044 are under installment plan. In this context, I find it difficult to accept that SPFL has entered into a “Joint Venture” with such a huge number of "associates". I find the claimed existence of a “Joint Venture” between SPFL and the "associates" preposterous since such venture has arisen from separate agreements between SPFL and 6,71,121 individual "associates" but has resulted in a common pool of contribution.

9.5 In view of the above, I find that the scheme or arrangement offered by SPFL having nomenclature “Joint Venture” is not a ‘joint-venture' in accordance with law but rather such term has been used by SPFL to camouflage its fund mobilising activity, which is in the nature of a 'collective investment scheme', in order to mislead and attract investment from the general public.

10.1 I note that the main characteristics of a 'collective investment scheme' are found in the instant scheme offered by SPFL. In this context, we may refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.G.F Limited & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. (MANU/SC/0247/2013), wherein it had observed:

“...sub-section (2) of Section 11 AA, which defines a collective investment scheme disclose that it is not restricted to any particular commercial activity such as in a shop or any other commercial establishment or even agricultural operation or transportation or shipping or entertainment industry etc. The definition only seeks to ascertain and identify any scheme or arrangement, irrespective of the nature of business, which attracts investors to invest their funds at the instance of someone else who comes forward to promote such scheme or arrangement in any field and such scheme or arrangement provides for the various consequences to result there from.”

10.2 In view of the abovementioned observations, I find that the SEBI Act is applicable to ‘collective investment scheme’ that engage in inviting investment or contribution from investors for investing in any asset which will inter alia result in a return on such investment. In this regard, the activity of fund mobilization by SPFL under the instant scheme with a resultant promise of returns when considered in light of the other features of such scheme, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, prima facie falls within the ambit of 'collective investment scheme' as defined under section 11AA of the SEBI Act.

10.3 I note that in terms of section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act, "no person shall sponsor or cause to be sponsored or cause to be carried on a 'collective investment scheme' unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with the regulations”. Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations provides that no person other than a Collective Investment Management Company which has obtained a certificate under the CIS Regulations shall carry on or sponsor or launch a 'collective investment scheme'. Therefore, a person can launch or sponsor or cause to sponsor a 'collective investment scheme' only if it is registered with SEBI as a Collective Investment Management Company. In my view, therefore, the launching/floating/sponsoring or causing to sponsor any 'collective investment scheme' by any 'person' without obtaining the certificate of registration in terms of the provisions of the CIS Regulations is in contravention of section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations. In this regard, I note that SPFL has not obtained any certificate of registration under the CIS Regulations for its fund mobilizing activity from the public, under the instant scheme offered by it.

10.4 Upon a consideration of the aforementioned paragraphs, I am of the view that SPFL is prima facie engaged in fund mobilising activity from the public, by floating or sponsoring or launching 'collective investment scheme' as defined in section 11AA of the SEBI Act without obtaining a certificate of registration from SEBI as required under section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and the CIS Regulations.

11. As discussed at paras 9.1 – 9.5 above, I find that the instant scheme offered by SPFL under the nomenclature “Joint Venture” is nothing but a camouflage for its fund mobilising activity. I find that such fund mobilising activity falls within the ambit of 'collective investment scheme' as defined under section 11AA of the SEBI Act and the same has been carried on by SPFL without due registration from SEBI. In this context, I note that protecting the interests of investors is the first and foremost mandate for SEBI and therefore, steps have to be taken in the instant matter to ensure only legitimate investment activities are carried on by SPFL and no investors are defrauded. In light of the same, I find it reasonable to take recourse through an interim action against SPFL for preventing it from further carrying on with its fund mobilising activity related to 'collective investment scheme', without registration from SEBI.

12. In view of the foregoing, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sections 11(1), 11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 65 of CIS Regulations, hereby direct SPFL and its Directors viz. Mr. Balasaheb K. Bhapkar, Mrs. Vandana B. Bhapkar and Mr. Shashank B. Bhapkar, -

a. not to collect any more money from investors including under the existing schemes;

b. not to launch any new schemes;

c. not to dispose of any of the properties or alienate any of the assets of the schemes;

d. not to divert any funds raised from public at large which are kept in bank account(s) and/or in the custody of the company.

13. The above directions shall take effect immediately and shall be in force until further orders.

14. This Order shall also be treated as a show cause notice. SPFL and its abovementioned Directors may show cause as to why appropriate directions under the SEBI Act and CIS Regulations including directions in terms of Regulations 65 and 73 of the CIS Regulations should not be taken against them.

15. SPFL and its abovementioned Directors shall, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order, file their reply, if any, to this order. SPFL and its abovementioned Directors may also indicate, in such reply, whether they wish to avail an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter.

Place: Mumbai
Date: July 17, 2013

S. RAMAN
WHOLE TIME MEMBER
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

साई प्रसाद फूड्स और उसके डायरे€टरों- बालासाहब के. भापकार वंदना बी. भापकार और शंशाक बी. भापकार से आर्थिक व्यवहार न करें - सेबी


दिल्ली. उ‘चतम ‹यायालय ने शारदा चिटफंड घोटाले की सीबीआई जांच की मांग को लेकर दायर याचिका पर केंद्र और बंगाल सरकार को नोटिस जारी किया है. प्रधान ‹यायाधीश ‹यायमूर्ति अल्तमस कबीर की पीठ ने देश में चिटफंड योजनाओं के नियमन के लिए भारतीय प्रतिभूति एवं विनिमय बोर्ड यानी सेबी को अधिक ताकत देने के लिए दायर याचिकाओं को लेकर भी दूसरी रा’य सरकारों और केंद्र को नोटिस दिया.

देश की सबसे बड़ी अदालत ने प्रीतम कुमार सिंह रे तथा सुब्रत चटर्जी की ओर से दायर 2 याचिकाओं पर आदेश पारित किया. इन दोनों याचिकाओं में देश में चिटफंड के कारोबार पर पूरी तरह से पाबंदी लगाने और आगे पैसे को एक˜ा करने पर तˆकाल रोक लगाने की मांग की गई थी.

याचिकाकर्ताओं ने कहा कि उ‹हें पुलिस अधिकारियों में कोई विश्ïवास नहीं है. भारी मुनाफे का लालच देकर निवेशकों को फंसाने वाली योजनाओं पर कार्रवाई के तहत सेबी ने 2 कंपनियों और उसके डायरे€टरों के कामकाज पर रोक लगा दी है.

इनके फंड ट्रांसफर प्रापर्टी के ट्रांसफर और बिक्री पर भी रोक लगा दी गई है. सेबी ने पाया कि साई प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज और साई प्रसाद फूड्स मŠयप्रदेश में जमीन खरीद-बिक्री के नाम पर अवैध तरीके से सामूहिक निवेश योजनाएं चला रही थी.

कंपनी लोगों को 15 से 20 फीसदी सालाना रिटर्न का वादा कर उनसे निवेश के पैसे ले रही थी. अंतरिम कदम उठाने की तˆकाल जरूरत है ताकि किसी निवेशक के साथ धोखाधड़ी न हो. कंपनियों को सेबी के साथ रजिस्ट्रेशन कराए बिना सामूहिक निवेश योजना से संबद्ध योजनाएं नहीं चलाना चाहिए.
साभार:
http://www.navabharat.biz/index.php/notice93

सांई ग्रुप के सुप्रीमो बाला साहेब के खिलाफ कानपुर में FIR दर्ज

साईं ग्रुप के गोरखधंधे के खुलासे की कड़ी में साईं प्रकाश के सीएमडी पुष्पेन्द्र बघेल के बाद अब साईं प्रसाद ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनीज के सीएमडी और सुप्रीमो बाला साहेब भापकर सहित  एक दर्जन लोगों के खिलाफ कानपुर के नौबस्ता थाने में एक FIR दर्ज कराई गई है।

कानपुर के नौबस्ता गल्ला मंडी निवासी बबलू कश्यप ने शनिवार थाने में साई प्रसाद ग्रुप के सीएमडी बाला साहेब भापकर,सीईओ एसएल श्रीवास्तव, वाइस प्रेसीडेंट संजय राय, जोनल अधिकारी शीशपाल यादव, एसआरएम देवदत्त चौधरी, कंट्री टीम कंट्रोलर डॉ.अशोक, डॉ. एके दीक्षित, तरुण यादव, जीपी यादव, ब्रांच मैनेजर निकेत जैन व एसआरएम मुंकद के खिलाफ धोखाधड़ी की विभिन्न धाराओं में मामला दर्ज कराया है।
बबलू का आरोप है कि कंट्री टीम कंट्रोलर डॉ. अशोक ने 17700 रुपया साईं प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज में लगवाया था। जिसके लिए कहा था कि यह पैसा तीन साल में दो गुना, पांच साल में तीन गुना व सात साल में पांच गुना हो जायेगा। साथ ही जमीन का एग्रीमेंट भी होगा लेकिन ऐसा कुछ नहीं हुआ। नौबस्ता पुलिस ने रिपोर्ट दर्ज करने की पुष्टि की है।

साथ ही पुलिस ने साईं प्रकाश ग्रुप से सीएमडी पुष्पेंद्र बघेल व धर्मवीर से रिमांड के दौरान पूछतांछ में लगे सबूतों के आधार पर पड़ताल तेज कर दी है। इसी के चलते साईं ग्रुप से जुड़े दफ्तरों में स्थानीय पुलिस के माध्यम से प्रपत्रों को कब्जे में लेकर जांच पड़ताल शुरू करा दी गई है। वहीं साईं ग्रुप से जुड़े अधिकारियों व अधिवक्ताओं ने भी पैरवी तेज कर दी है।

साभार:
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Posted by Rajawat at 7:46 AM
http://mlmnewspapers.blogspot.in/2013/03/fir-fir.html

नॉन बैंकिंग कंपनी का दफ्तर सील

- जांच अधिकारी को कोई प्रमाण नहीं दिखा सके शाखा प्रबंधक
- ऑडिट रिपोर्ट में भी मिली गड़बड़ी

हमारे प्रतिनिधि, बांका : जिला में नॉनबैंकिंग कंपनियों के खिलाफ प्रशासनिक कार्रवाई जारी है। पूरे जिला के विभिन्न बाजारों में अब तक दो दर्जन से अधिक शाखाएं प्रशासन सील कर चुकी है।

इसी कड़ी में वरीय उप समाहत्र्ता सह बैंकिंग पदाधिकारी प्रभात कुमार के नेतृत्व में प्रशासन की एक टीम ने मंगलवार को बांका शहर के सांई प्रसाद नॉन बैंकिंग कार्यालय पर छापा मारा। कार्यालय के आवश्यक कागजातों की जांच के बाद अधिकारियों ने उसे सील कर दिया।

जांच अधिकारी प्रभात कुमार ने बताया कि छापा के वक्त शाखा प्रबंधक नीरज कुमार सिंहा और कर्मी भी वहां मौजूद थे। बैंक का ऑडिट रिपोर्ट गलत मिला। उन्होंने बताया कि शाखा के पास पब्लिक डिपोजिट के लिए आरबीआई एक्ट का पंजीयन नहीं है। साथ ही प्रोडक्ट बेच कर सामूहिक निवेश का कोई प्रमाण पत्र भी उनके पास नहीं मिला।

जांच अधिकारी ने बताया कि शाखा के अंदर के कागजातों की जब्ती सूची बनाकर शाखा प्रबंधक को सुपूर्द कर दिया गया है। कई आवश्यक कागजात जांच के लिए लाये गये हैं। इसके बाद कार्यालय को सील कर दिया गया है।

वरीय उप समाहत्र्ता ने श्री कुमार ने कहा कि गरीब उपभोक्ता ऐसे बैंकों से बचें। मान्यता प्राप्त बैंक में ही खाता का संचालन का राशि की जमा निकासी करें। उन्होंने कहा कि ऐसे बैंकों के खिलाफ प्रशासनिक मुहिम लगातार जारी रहेगी।

साभार:
Updated on: Wed, 08 May 2013 01:03 AM (IST)
http://www.jagran.com/bihar/banka-10370035.html

हाईकोर्ट ने जारी की 33 MP चिटफंड कंपनियों की लिस्ट, दिए CBI जाँच के आदेश

उत्तर प्रदेश की एकमात्र कंपनी कल्पतरु की ही तरह मध्य प्रदेश में ऐसी 33 कम्पनियां है जिन पर हाईकोर्ट ने तो चाबुक चलाया लेकिन उपरोक्त सभी विभाग और राज्य सरकार उनके जख्मों पर मलहम लगाकर उन्हें काम की पूरी छूट दे रही है।

इन कंपनियों के लिस्ट पर नज़र डालते ही साफ़ हो जाता है कि ये कंपनिया अपने मूल धंधे से अलग हटकर सरकार की नाक के नीचे ही लोगो की गाढ़ी कमाई को कैसे हड़प रही है। कोई कंपनी डेवलपिंग के नाम पर तो कोई मार्केटिंग के नाम पर अपना धंधा चला रही है।

हाईकोर्ट की ग्वालियर बेंच ने जिन कंपनियों के सीबीआई जांच के आदेश दिए उनके नाम निम्न है।
1- मध्य प्रदेश लोक विकास फाइनेंस लिमिटेड
2 - समृद्धा जीवन फूड्स इंडिया लिमिटेड
3 - गरिमा रियल एस्टेट एंड एलायड
4 - सक्षम डेयरी इंडिया लिमिटेड
5 - ग्रीन फिंगर्स एग्रो लैंड मेंटेनेन्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड
6 - रायल सन मार्केटिंग एंड इंश्योरेंस सर्विस
7 - स्काई लार्क लैंड डेवलपर्स एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर इंडिया लिमिटेड
8 - आधुनिक हाउसिंग डेवलपमेंट प्राइवेट लिमिटेड
9 - जीवन सुरभि डेयरी एंड एलायड
10-परिवार डेयरी एंड एलायड लिमिटेड
11- JSV डेवलपर्स इंडिया लिमिटेड
12- KMJ लैंड डेवलपर्स इंडिया लिमिटेड
13- सन इंडिया रीड एस्टेट
14- मधुर रियल एस्टेट एंड एलायड
15- BPN रियल एस्टेट एंड एलायड
16- KBCL प्राइवेट लिमिटेड
17- G N लैंड डेवलपर्स
18- किम फ़यूचर विजन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर डेवलपर्स लिमिटेड
19- P A C L इंडिया लिमिटेड
20- M K D लैंड डेवलपर्स इंडिया लिमिटेड
21- कमल इंडिया रीड एस्टेट एंड एलायड लिमिटेड
22- सार्थक इंडिया लिमिटेड
23- R B N रियल एस्टेट इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर इंडिया लिमिटेड
24- साईं प्रसाद फ़ूड इंडिया लिमिटेड, साई प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज
25- गालव लीजिंग एंड फाइनेंस लिमिटेड
26- G C A मार्केटिंग लिमिटेड
27- चन्द्रलोक फिनवेस्ट प्राइवेट लिमिटेड
28- स्टेट सिटिज़न सख सहकारी मार्या
29- मधुर टूरिस्म एंड मर्केंटाइल प्राइवेट लिमिटेड
30- मधुर डेयरी एंड एलायड लिमिटेड
31- रायल सन मार्केटिंग

कभी छोटे मोटे धंधे करके अपनी जीविका चलाने वाले इन कंपनियों के मालिक आज हज़ारों करोडो में खेल रहे है। ऐसी ही एक कंपनी है सक्षम डेयरी इंडिया लिमिटेड और जीवन सुरभि डेयरी एंड एलायड जिनका पहले दूध का व्यवसाय था आज इन कंपनियों ने चिट फंड के बिजनेस में मध्यप्रदेश और आस पास के राज्यों में अपना ऐसा मकड़जाल फैला रखा है जिसमें फंसकर आम आदमी धीरे धीरे अपने मेहनत की कमाई को लुटा रहा है। मध्य प्रदेश में कुकुरमुत्ते की तरह उगी इन कंपनियों ने जहा आम आदमी को धता बताया वही सरकार को भी अपनी पाकेट में रखा।

सीबीआई की आर्थिक अपराध शाखा इनकी जाँच कर रही है लेकिन कैसे कर रही है इसकी जांच कोई नहीं कर रहा ।

ग्वालियर की हाईकोर्ट बेंच जब भी फटकार लगाती है तब जांच के नाम पर कंपनियों के खाते सील कर दिए जाते है, कंपनिया कुछ दिनों के लिए काम बंद करती है फिर पुराने ढर्रे पर वापस आ जाती है। ऐसी ही एक कंपनी है उत्तर प्रदेश से स्थापित की गई कल्पतरु जो मथुरा शहर से संचालित होती है और इसका नाम है केबीसीएल इंडिया लिमिटेड, 'कल्पतरु'|

वर्ष 2002 में रजिस्ट्रार आफ कंपनीज, उत्तर प्रदेश के कानपुर कार्यालय से एक पब्लिक लिमिटेड फार्म का सर्टिफिकेट और आईएसओ नंबर हासिल करे वाली कल्पतरु कंपनी अपने निवेशकों को उनका पैसा दोगुने से साढ़े तीन गुना करने के सपने दिखाती है| इसके अलावा कल्पतरु कंपनी ने देश के 14 राज्यों में सौ से अधिक कार्यालय भी खोल रखे है|

साभार:
Monday, 13 May 2013
Read More on: http://www.mlmharkhabar.com/2013/05/33-mp-cbi.html
Copyright © MLM HarKhabar 2013 - Like us on facebook for daily updates https://www.facebook.com/myMLM.harkhabar

साईं बाबा के नाम पर केंद्र सरकार को धोखा दे रही साईं प्रसाद फूड्स , छत्तीसगढ़ में करोड़ों का कारोबार

पिछले दिनों पुलिस के लगातार पड़ रहे छापे से ये सिद्ध हो रहा है कि साईं प्रसाद फूड्स कम्पनी छत्तीसगढ़ में करोड़ों का कारोबार कर गरीबों के मेहनत की कमाई पर डाका डाल रही है , कंपनी के कई कार्यालय सील किये गए जिसे बाद में अधिकारियों को मोटी रकम दे कर  पुनः खुलवाया गया . छत्तीसगढ़ मुख्यालय में रिंग रोड अशोका मिल्लेनियम स्थित कार्यालय सहित , सारंगढ़ , कांकेर,  कोरबा , जगदलपुर कार्यालयों की लगातार शिकायतों के चलते छापे डाले गए हैं .

दर असल ऐसी और भी नॉन बैंकिंग कम्पनियाँ सरकारी नुमायिन्दों की शह से राज्य के अंदरूनी इलाकों में पैर पसार  रही हैं , इन कंपनियों के एजेंट गरीब आदिवासियों को पैसे कई गुना बढाने का झांसा दे कर  छोटी छोटी राशी वसूल रहे हैं , वहीँ उस राशी के एवज में जमीनों की रजिस्ट्री का भरोसा भी दिलाते हैं , बाद में ये एजेंट या तो कंपनी बंद हो जाने  , या रुपये जमा करने की अनियमितता बता कर रकम डुबो देते हैं , गरीब आदिवासी की पहुँच न होने के कारण रुपये हजम करने में ये कंपनिया करोडो डकार जाती है ,

महाराष्ट्र की साईं प्रसाद फ़ूड कंपनी भी उनमे से एक है , खबर तो ये भी है कि कोर्पोरेट मंत्रालय में मात्र पांच लाख का पेड अप केपिटल दिखा कर ये कंपनी अब तक करोड़ों लूट चुकी है , कंपनी के स्थानीय अधिकारी आनंद मंगल पण्डे अधिकारियों और मीडिया कर्मियों को मैनेज करने में अपना समय व्यतीत करते हैं , पर कुछ सवाल ऐसे है जिनका जवाब इन अधिकारियों के पास नहीं है.  खाद्य उत्पादों के कारोबार की आड़ में इस कंपनी ने ग्रामीणों से करोड़ों रुपये उगाहे हैं , भारी ब्याज का झांसा देकर ये कंपनी फिक्स डिपोसिट , बीमा , जमीन जैसे कारोबार भी ग्रामीण अंचल में कर रही है , स्थानीय सूत्रों के अनुसार इस कंपनी ने बिना कोलोनैजर लायसेंस लिए ही छत्तीसगढ़ में जमीनों की खरीद फरोक्त कर रखी है .  
साभार:
09/03/2011 10:10:09 
http://exposecg.com/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=78

सांई प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज लिमि‍टेड ने लोगों को ठग कर किए करोडो के वारे न्‍यारे

सांई प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज  के बारे में रिर्जव बैंक से भी जानकारी मांगी गई

सांई प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज लिमि‍टेड के बारे में रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ इंडिका से जानकारी मांगी गई है ।  इस संस्‍था के खिलाफ राजेंद्र नगर थाने में पिछले दिनों शिकायत की गई थी । जिसमें बताया गया कि संस्‍था के द्वारा प्रदेश के सैकडों लोगो से कम समय में धन दुगुना करने का झासा देकर तथा बीमा पॉलिशी के नाम पर ठगी की जारही है । प्रदेश के सैकडों लोगों से अब तक करोडों रूपये की वसूली की जा चुकी है । पुलिस मामले की पडताल कर रही है । संस्‍था के खिलाफ फिलहाल जुर्म दर्ज नहीं किया गया है ।

राजेन्‍द्र नगर थाने में पिछले दिनों शंकर नगर निवासी सतीश सिंह ने लिखित शिकायत की थी जिसमें बताया गया था कि मिलेनियम प्‍लाजा प्रथम तल स्थित सांई प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज लिमिटेड द्वारा शहर में अवैध रूप से सैकडों एकड् जमीन प्‍लाटिंग कर प्रदेश की भोली’भाली जनता से कम समय में धन दुगुना करने और बीमा पॉलिशी के नाम पर करोडों रूपए डिपाजिट कराए जा रहे हैं । भूमि प्‍लाटिंग के लिए कालोनाईजर्स लासेंस कलेक्‍टर के द्वारा दिया जाता है । इस संस्‍था के पास कालोनाईजर्स के लिए लाइसेंस नहीं है ।

शिकायत में बताया गया है कि संस्‍था के एजेंट गांव-गांव में घूम कर लोगों को कम समय में धन दुगुना करने और बीमा पॉलिशि बेचने के नाम पर झासा देकर वसूली कर रहे हैं ।

जानकार सूत्रों के मुताबिक संस्‍था के द्वारा शहर और प्रदेश के सैकडो लोगो से करोडो रूपए डिपाजिट कराया जा चुका है । राजधानी के राजेंद्र नगर थाने में मामले की शिकायत की गई है लेकिन अब तक इस मामले में जुर्म दर्ज नहीं किया गया है । मामले की शिकायत राज्‍यपाल और मुख्‍यमंत्री से न्‍याय की गुहार लगाई है।

इस संबंध में राजेन्‍द्र नगर थाना प्रभारी श्रुती सिंह ने बताया कि यह मामला बैंकिंग का है । आरबीआई और दूसरे विभागों से जानकारी मांगी गई है । दस्‍तावेज मिलने के बाद उचित कार्यवाई की जाएगी ।

साभार:
21/02/2011 15:00:59
http://exposecg.com/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=63

मध्यप्रदेश में सांई के नाम पर जारी है ठगी

इंदौर।सांई के नाम पर ठगी का जाल फैलाकर गरीब और मध्यमवर्गीय तबके को शिकार बनाने वाली कंपनियां प्रदेश में तेजी से पनप रही हैं।

चिटफंड कंपनी सांई प्रसाद की पोल खुलने के बाद इसकी जांच जारी है और इस बीच, निम्न एवं मध्यमवर्गीय परिवारों को प्रॉपर्टी में जबर्दस्त कमाई का लालच देकर वसूली करने वाली तीन नई कंपनियां, सांई सर्वोत्तम एजुसाफ्ट कॉर्पोरेट सर्विसेस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, सांई सर्वोत्तम संपत्ति प्राइवेट लिमिटेड व एसएसएस कॉर्पोरेट ग्रुप सामने आई हैं। वैसे तो ये कंपनियां सालभर से चल रही हैं, लेकिन पत्रिका ने इनकी पड़ताल की तो गोरखधंधे के चौंकाने वाले तथ्य सामने आए हैं। दोनों ही कंपनियो के तकरीबन 25 हजार से अधिक सदस्य हैं, जिनसे लाखों रूपए जुटाए जा चुके हैं।

किसी की मंजूरी नहीं
- एजेंटों को 20 फीसदी का कमीशन दिया जाता है।
- कंपनी के पास केवल कॉरपोरेट मंत्रालय का रजिस्ट्रेशन है जो कि एक सामान्य कंपनी के रूप में रजिस्टर्ड है।
- निवेश स्वीकारने के लिए न तो सेबी और न ही आरबीआई से अनुमति ली गई है।

नहीं दिया जवाब
इस संबंध में पत्रिका ने रवि शर्मा और हरिनारायण डांगी से संपर्क किया, लेकिन दोनों में से किसी ने भी इस संबंध में चर्चा नहीं की। कंपनी के यह दोनों प्रमुख डायरेक्टर है।

डायरेक्टर
रवि शर्मा, रामदेव मोटर्स के पास, आगर, जिला शाजापुर
निधि शर्मा, एच-5, हाउसिंग बोर्ड कॉलोनी, झाबुआ
हरिनारायण डांगी, सुदर्शन नगर, सारंगपुर, राजगढ़

ये कंपनियां अपना कॉर्पोरेट ऑफिस इंदौर में खोलती हैं, जबकि ब्रांच ऑफिस मालवांचल और निमाड़ के छोटे-छोटे शहरों में खोले जाते हैं।
धार, झाबुआ, मंदसौर, नीमच, रतलाम और देवास जिलों एवं गांवों में कार्यालय खोलने शुरू कर दिए हैं।
100 रूपए मासिक से लेकर 50 हजार रूपए तक का निवेश स्वीकार कर रही हैं।
हर माह छोटी-छोटी किस्तों के बदले एक बांड भी जारी किया जाता है।

कंपनियां
1. सांई सर्वोत्तम एजुसाफ्ट कॉर्पाेरेट सर्विसेस प्रालि 2. सांई सर्वोत्तम संपत्ति डेवलपर्स एंड इंफ्रा. प्रालि
3. एसएसएस कॉर्पोरेट ग्रुप

साभार:
राजेश जोशी
Yogendranath Dixit द्वारा 29th April पोस्ट किया गया
http://shribhrashtachar.blogspot.in/2013/04/blog-post_1444.html

देवघर में चल रही 27 कंपनियां आरबीआइ से निबंधित नहीं

पटना /देवघर: देवघर में जिन 27 कंपनियों को झारखंड सरकार ने सील किया है वह सभी कंपनियां रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ इंडिया से निबंधित नहीं है. रिजर्व बैंक ने झारखंड उच्च न्यायालय में हलफनामा दायर कर यह जानकारी दी है.

जानकारी के मुताबिक सोमवार को यह हलफनामा दायर किया गया है. रिजर्व बैंक के मुताबिक बिहार झारखंड से मात्र दो ही कंपनियों को निवेशकों से जमा लेने का लाइसेंस जारी किया गया है. यह कंपनियां हैं - ओपेल फिनांस और गृहस्थ फिनांस. दोनों का मुख्यालय पटना में है. अधिकारियों के मुताबिक 30 नवंबर, 2012 को जारी सूची के मुताबिक देश भर में महज 265 कंपनियों को आम लोगों से जमा लेने का लाइसेंस निर्गत है. देवघर में जिन कंपनियों को झारखंड सरकार ने सील किया है और रिजर्व बैंक ने कहा कि यह कंपनियां उनके यहां निबंधित नहीं है उनकी सूची इस प्रकार है.

कंपनियों के नाम
केयर विजन म्यूच्यूअल वेनीफिट लि.,
सुराहा माइक्रो फाइनेंस,
सन प्लांट एग्रो ग्रुप,
प्रयाग इंफोटेक हाइ राइज लि.,
साईं प्रसाद प्रोपर्टीज लि,
फेडरल एग्रो कॉमर्शियल लि,
गुलशन निर्माण इंडिया लि.,
तिरूबालाजी राइजिंग रियल स्टेट प्राइवेट लि.,
एलकेमिस्ट इन्फ्रा रियल्टी लि,
धनोलटी डेपलपर्स लि.,
कोलकाता वियर इंडस्ट्री लि.,
संकल्प ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनीज,
वियर्ड इन्फ्रा स्ट्रक्चर्ड कॉरपोरेशन लि.,
रूफर्स मार्केटिंग लि.,
सनसाइन ग्लोबल एग्रो लि.,
रमल इंडस्ट्रीज लि.,
इनॉरमस इंडस्ट्रीज लि.,
एक्सेला इन्फ्रा स्ट्रक्चर एंड डेवलपमेंट लि.,
गीतांजलि उद्योग लि.,
एम.पी.ए एग्रो एनिमल्स प्रोजेक्ट्स लि.,
जुगांतर रियल्टी लि.,
एटीएम ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनीज,
मातृभूमि मनुफैक्चरिंग एंड मार्केटिंग (आइ) लि.,
रोज वेली होटल्स एंड इंटरटेनमेंट लि.,
बर्धमान सन्मार्ग वेलफेयर सोसायटी,
अपना परिवार एग्रो फॉर्मिग डेवलपर्स लि.
वारिस ग्रुप एंड अर्सदीप फाइनांस लि.

साभार:
04 May 2013
http://www.prabhatkhabar.com/news/2722-story-article.html

चिट-फंड व नन बैंकिंग कंपनियों पर छापा

भागलपुर: एसएसपी के निर्देश पर भागलपुर पुलिस टीम ने शुक्रवार को चिट फंड व नन बैंकिंग कंपनियों की स्थानीय शाखाओं में छापेमारी की. छापेमारी दोपहर लगभग बारह बजे साईं प्रसाद प्रोपर्टिज लिमिटेड व साईं प्रसाद फुड्स लिमिटेड के कार्यालय में की गयी. इस दौरान कार्यालय में उपस्थित मैनेजर अश्विनी सिंह ने पुलिस टीम को कंपनी के कागजात दिखाये लेकिन पुलिस टीम उक्त कागजात से संतुष्ट नहीं हुई.

पूछताछ के दौरान पुलिस को बताया गया कि मध्यप्रदेश के भोपाल के लोग यहां कार्यरत हैं. कंपनी मध्यप्रदेश की है. लेकिन पुलिस को आरबीआइ का रजिस्ट्रेशन व सेबी की गाइड लाइन के कागजात उपलब्ध नहीं कराये जा सके. पुलिस टीम ने कंपनी के मैनेजर को उक्त कागजात के सत्यापन के लिए आदमपुर थाना बुलाया है.

छापेमारी टीम में पुलिस उपाधीक्षक विधि व्यवस्था मो फरोगुदीन, पुलिस निरीक्षक विधि व्यवस्था अमरनाथ तिवारी, कोतवाली इंस्पेक्टर कुमोद कुमार, मोजाहिदपुर इंस्पेक्टर मो जमील असगर, नाथनगर इंस्पेक्टर मो महफूज आलम, आदमपुर थानाध्यक्ष संतोष कुमार, बरारी थानाध्यक्ष अमर कुमार, तिलकामांझी थानाध्यक्ष जहांगीर आलम व तातारपुर थानाध्यक्ष संजय विश्वास शामिल थे.

साभार:
04 May 2013
http://www.prabhatkhabar.com/news/2760-story-article.html

साईं प्रासद ग्रुप के सीएमडी समेत 12 के खिलाफ मुकदमा

कानपुर, प्रतिनिधि : साईं ग्रुप के गोरखधंधे के खुलासे की कड़ी में साईं प्रकाश के सीएमडी के बाद साईं प्रसाद ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनीज के सीएमडी बाला साहेब भापकर समेत एक दर्जन लोगों के खिलाफ नौबस्ता थाने में एक मामला दर्ज हुआ है।

नौबस्ता गल्ला मंडी निवासी बबलू कश्यप ने शनिवार नौबस्ता थाने में साई प्रसाद ग्रुप के सीएमडी बाला साहेब भापकर,सीईओ एसएल श्रीवास्तव, वाइस प्रेसीडेंट संजय राय, जोनल अधिकारी शीशपाल यादव, एसआरएम देवदत्त चौधरी, कंट्री टीम कंट्रोलर डॉ.अशोक, डॉ. एके दीक्षित, तरुण यादव, जीपी यादव, ब्रांच मैनेजर निकेत जैन व एसआरएम मुंकद के खिलाफ धोखाधड़ी की धाराओं में मामला दर्ज कराया है।

बबलू का आरोप है कि कंट्री टीम कंट्रोलर डॉ. अशोक ने 17700 रुपया साईं प्रसाद प्रापर्टीज में लगवाया था। जिसके लिए कहा था कि यह पैसा तीन साल में दो गुना, पांच साल में तीन गुना व सात साल में पांच गुना हो जायेगा। साथ ही जमीन का एग्रीमेंट भी होगा लेकिन ऐसा कुछ नहीं हुआ।

नौबस्ता पुलिस ने रिपोर्ट दर्ज करने की पुष्टि की है। दूसरी तरफ पुलिस ने साईं प्रकाश गु्रप से सीएमडी पुष्पेंद्र बघेल व धर्मवीर से रिमांड के दौरान पूछतांछ में लगे सबूतों के आधार पर पड़ताल तेज कर दी है। इसी के चलते साईं ग्रुप से जुड़े दफ्तरों में स्थानीय पुलिस के माध्यम से प्रपत्रों को कब्जे में लेकर जांच पड़ताल शुरू करा दी गई है। वहीं साईं ग्रुप से जुड़े अधिकारियों व अधिवक्ताओं ने भी पैरवी तेज कर दी है।

साभार:
http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/epaper/article/index.php?choice=show_article&location=30&Ep_relation=8&Ep_edition=2013-02-10&articleid=111761557572569688

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Finance companies violating RBI, Sebi norms

GUMLA: The financial establishments here, which were sealed on Monday, were violating directives of the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).

Local branch managers of Sai Prakash Properties Development, Sharaddha Realty India Ltd, BN Gold Real Estate and Allied Ltd, Arshdeep Finance Ltd and Sahaji Marketing Ltd in Gumla town failed to present any documents relating to RBI and Sebi, Gumla SDO Girija Shankar Prasad said in his report to DC Praveen Shankar.

The SDO said all these financial companies were functioning as banks without any basis for the same. "During the inquiry, it came to fore that these establishments have appointed many agents to lure innocent villagers by offering 10-15% commission to them and getting deposits by promising maturity amount as double or even more on them in a very short duration." Prasad said.

In Basia block headquarters and nearby Konbir, offices of Kolkata Ware Industries and Multinational Group of Companies were also sealed on Monday.

The SDO has recommended constitution of team to be led by a senior officer and consisting of a district account officer, a senior officer of any nationalized bank and a legal adviser to probe in detail into their activities and legality of their operations.

Courtesy:
TNN Mar 27, 2013, 09.06AM IST
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-27/ranchi/38069528_1_sebi-norms-finance-companies-sdo-girija-shankar-prasad

Sebi gets teeth to crack down on suspect investors

Govt okays amendment to Sebi Act to give it powers to track phone records, regulate ponzi schemes
In a move that is expected to help track rampant insider trading in the Indian stock market, the government on Wednesday allowed securities regulator Sebi to monitor call data records of investors and conduct searches at companies suspected of wrong doing.

The Cabinet, which met in New Delhi, also approved a proposal to amend the Sebi Act allowing Sebi to regulate ‘chit fund’ schemes, Reuters quoted Praful Patel, a cabinet minister, as saying.

“This (tracking call records) is a very good step. It will elevate the powers of Sebi in insider trading cases closer to those in the United States,” said J N Gupta, a former Sebi executive director and founder of proxy advisory firm Stakeholders’ Empowerment Services (SES).

The famous insider trading cases involving Rajat Gupta, former McKinsey managing director, and hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, in the US were nailed through detailed analysis of call records.

“This is a significant step. In insider trading cases, what usually so happens that price-sensitive information is passed on by one person to another, mostly through telephone calls, when a corporate event is about to happen. Information is passed on either to buy or sell securities. Sebi can now ask telecom companies for call records of suspected persons on specified days,” said M S Sahoo, member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and former wholetime member at Sebi.

Sahoo said till now telecom companies could refuse to provide such information citing them as “confidential and invasion of privacy” of persons.

The move to get call records will also help Sebi in all other investigations also, said Gupta of SES. Among others, the Sebi chairman would have the powers to authorise conducting of search and seizure.

At present, Sebi can conduct search and seizure only after approval from the chief metropolitan magistrate, but this provision is often seen as delaying proceedings and hampering the confidential nature of probe.

The move to allow Sebi to regulate chit funds is another big step to end several hundreds of ponzi schemes across the country.

Companies such as Sahara group of Subrato Roy to West Bengal-based Saradha group have been collecting thousands of crores from millions of investors without proper permission or scrutiny. Lack of clarity on who would regulate such money-mobilising schemes helped such activities to spread rampantly.

“Chit funds were considered ‘orphans’ on the question of regulatory body,” Gupta explained.

Sebi has been booking several firms which run the so-called ‘Collective Investment Schemes’, which lure investors to put money in multi-level marketing schemes or schemes that invest in holiday membership schemes (Rose Valley group), ‘potato purchase’ scheme (Sumangal Industries) etc.

On Wednesday, for instance, Sebi prohbited Sai Prasad Properties, which have been collecting money from investors in Mumbai and Goa, among others, from raising funds under any of its schemes.

“There was no clarity on who would regulate such schemes. Till now, in some cases it will fall with the Companies Act. Even State governments come in the way,” explained Sahoo, adding that the amendment will help Sebi tackle the menace of ponzi schemes.

Gupta of SES, however, said it will be difficult to regulate and curtail ponzi schemes completely until there is effective coordination between the Reserve Bank of India and Sebi. “RBI has to create sensitivity across all the bank branches. Banks should be alerted to report any sudden suspicious transactions in any accounts,” he said.

Sebi has been seeking an overhaul of regulations as well as mandate for a long time, given the changing nature of the securities market in general, and newer tools being used by manipulators to take gullible investors for a ride, in particular.
Courtesy:
By Rajesh Abraham   
Jul 17 2013 , Mumbai
http://www.mydigitalfc.com/news/sebi-gets-teeth-crack-down-suspect-investors-520

Sebi restrains two firms, their directors in ponzi crackdown

New Delhi, Jul 17 (PTI) Continuing its clampdown against illegal money-collection schemes promising huge returns, Sebi today restrained two companies and their directors from raising further public funds and asked them not to divert any funds or sell any properties till further orders.

The regulator found that Sai Prasad Properties and its group company Sai Prasad Foods were running unauthorised Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) in the name of sale and purchase of land parcels from thousands of people in Madhya Pradesh and other areas with promise of total money back along with returns of 15-20 per cent per year.

The returns were linked to the new investors added by the existing investors, giving them a shape of ponzi schemes.

Passing two separate orders against these companies and their directors, the regulator said it felt it necessary to take immediate interim steps to ensure that no investors are defrauded. It said the companies are prevented from further carrying on with their fund mobilising activity related to ''collective investment scheme'', without registering with Sebi.

As per the orders, Sai Prasad Foods and its directors -- Balasaheb K Bhapkar, Vandana B Bhapkar and Shashank B Bhapkar -- have been asked not to collect any more money from investors including under the existing schemes. They have been barred from launching any new schemes as well.

Besides, they have also been ordered not to dispose of any of the properties or alienate any of the assets of the schemes and not to divert any funds raised from public at large which are kept in bank accounts and/or are in its custody.

Similar orders have been passed against Sai Prasad Properties and its directors/promoters -- Balasaheb K Bhapkar and Vandana B Bhapkar.

Sebi has asked the two companies and their directors to file their replies, if any, within 15 days. .
Courtesy:
Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:32:38 GMT
http://news.in.msn.com/business/article.aspx?cp-documentid=253396990

Chit fund companies defy HC order, CBI probe - Scam-dance continues

Lucknow: A number of chit fund companies have rapidly seen growth in the last decade. There are dozens of companies, illegal in the eye of government, that are running in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Haryana and many more states, where they are flourishing by the day on the promise of paying back the amount, added with 15-20 percent interest to the investors. Companies have worked upon several schemes as per investor’s financial potential, and are thereby assaulting the families economically. The government is well known of the datum and Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has even nodded in yes, at the presence of such companies, ordering a CBI probe into the same but the investigating agency has been slothful to take down these companies and nab the culprits. One of the recent example of such company, that came in to limelight, is Saradha Group, where the investors and employees were taken to the edge of braving “rigged” circumstances where many committed suicide and others were thinking to.

The chit fund scam from West Bengal, which surfaced in April saw the income of several families, going in the dump. Millions hoarded to the company in the pursuit of secure investment and invested their income, which for many came as daily wages into it for the guarantee that it will act as their insurance for a secure future. The supervising division of the group had everything planned to make sure that people invest in the company. In order to win the trust of commoners, they named the company after the wife of a blest saint Swami Ramkrishn Paramhans, Saradha Devi. The group penetrated by keeping agents from the same communities they aimed for, again for building faith in public. The syndicate even took help of a Bengali film for winning trust and even recorded its presence in real estate sector. But there is no clue of where the investors’ amount stands today.

Majority of populace, living in northern India, come under low income bracket. They are the ones who fall for the deception as collecting the amount in the bank does not guarantees them the 15-20 percent, vowed by these companies. Company agents convey the investors that it will be buying land with the expanse of collected investment and later will return the amount with interest from the profits earned by reselling the land.

Kalptaru Biotech Corporate Limited/KBCL India Ltd. and KMJ land Developers are two such companies that have got the same business flourishing in ten states including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Haryana. Both these companies work on similar grounds and strategies. KBCL India Ltd. Operates from Mathura and KMJ Land Developers is operated from Gujarat via super luxury offices. The smallest link to this widespread business is the agent, who works on commission and brings business from small towns and other citizenry. The company has a variety of schemes according to the capability of investors, ranging from Rs 100/month to one time investments.

According to the information given by the officials of KBCL to CBI, the company is running since 1993. It then got registered in Company Registrar Office in Kanpur, in 2003. The chief grind of KBCL was building, expansions of residential colonies in city and villages, building residential apartments, plotting and acquisition of land lease. This company is involved only in real estate business. Company says that it has got clients which opt for either installments or invest in a lump which, according to the rules and regulation of the company, are specified a piece of land. Those who capitalize the amount in one go, the land is allocated to them after a year and those who furnish the amount in installments, the land is allocated after they have paid 50 percent of the amount. The registry of the land is prepared after 100 days of land allocation to one time investors while the registry of the land comes after a year for those involved in installment schemes but only after they have worked upon the scheme and paid all the installments.

Until March 2012, company had 3,97,532 clients, to whom 15,51,381.5 square yards of land was allocated. 14,706 allocation letters were issued during the period, out of which 13,911, according to the policy, rendered full investment amount to the company. According to the CBI report, there is no mention of this fact in company’s contract that after the completion of the policy, there is a choice of giving an approximated value of the land instead of the land itself. Also the land, on which the company is trying to score a client, is disputed.

Since most of the investors (falling in low income bracket) do not go deep in extracting details of the company, for them it is mere a finance company that gives higher interest rates than banks therefore investing in it, sounds a lucrative deal to them.

Reasons why these companies are mushrooming?
- Uneducated investors find the 15-20 percent interest rates by these companies, more ideal than the 4-8 percent rate given by government banks or other institutions. For them, finding a quicker way to grow their income is a priority.
- People have to go through lots of formalities to open an account while companies put agents in between and issue a policy in no time.
- Commission seeking agent comes and collects the installment on time whereas in government policies, people stand in queue for hours.
- Illiterate investors are ignorant in finding the reality of the company or what it does with the money pooled with such schemes.

The Reality
- These companies are only registered as real estate companies, thereby, they only have the authority to sale-purchase land and develop residential infrastructure. They do not have permission to collect capital investments from market.
- The company distributes 40 percent part of the investors’ money to the 12-level agent chain as their commission which comes down to 10 percent in 2nd year and 6 percent in 3rd year.
- According to Indian Banking Act 1949, these companies are not authorized to run such fiscal schemes and collect money from any person. Investing in capital markets too is illegal according to SEBI.
- The allocation of land only happens after investors have given 60 percent of the total amount. And proceeding of giving land to the client happens after complete investment has been melted via policy.
- Investors face problems in withdrawing their money if they fail to give installments, timely.
- The money is invested in the form of fixed deposit which cannot be withdrawn in between.
- Acquisition of land lease is mere a formality to play with legalities.

In a PIL filed in the Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, request for probe has been asked against 33 such companies. Court, on PIL number 3332/2010, ordered CBI to investigate the matter since it was related to lakhs of investors having low incomes. The preliminary investigation has revealed that the companies (listed at the bottom) are illegally involved in collecting investments from capital market via chit fund schemes.

Out of 33, there are 20 companies which have been found to have running the business in 15 states including Madhya Pradesh. A commissioner was appointed to lead the CBI enquiry into the matter. The court said that the enquiry is necessary for country’s economy and for the interest of common man. However, CBI Bhopal was unable to go deep into the investigation and hence the inquiry was transferred to the EQ-III branch, CBI, New Delhi. But still, no action has been taken against these companies nor have they been ordered to, at the least, stop their fraudlent craft in the form of chit fund schemes. SEBI, ED, IT Department, State Government, Company Law & Order Board haven’t turned to even get hold of what these companies are up to.

An ex manager at Meerut branch of KALPTARU, Ataullah Khan shares, “I was getting salary plus commission on deposits, I worked hard and connected many people and got approx. Rs 37 Crore deposits within 6 years as FD/TD/RD, but I was not knowing about company profile. A year ago, company closed all the offices in western UP. After that the investors never got their return.”

He even tells about the difficulties he faced after the company took a trip, out from the state. Explaining he was hassled by the investors, he says, “I have returned some amount to investors from my commission and promised that company will return their investment and reopen offices too. But investors came to my house on everyday basis. I ran away and left my village permanently with family.” The report of same was sent to several DIGs and IGs of the state but it only gained frozen responses.

As one can see, the company not only cheated investors but in a way, did a double-dealing with its employees too.

Companies Under Scanner
- Madhya Pradesh Lok Vikas Finance Ltd.
- Samruddh Jeevan Foods India Ltd.
- Garima Real Estate and Allied
- Saksham Dairy India Ltd.
- Green Fingers Agro Land Maintenance Private Ltd.
- Royal Son Marketing and Insurance Service
- Sky Lark Land Developers and Infrastructure India Ltd.
- Adhunik Housing Development Pvt. Ltd.
- Jeevan Surbhi Dairy and Allied
- Parivar Dairy and Allied Ltd.
- JSV Developers India Ltd.
- KMJ Land Developers India Ltd.
- Sun India Real Estate
- Madhur Real Estate and Allied
- BPN Real Estate and Allied
- KBCL Pvt. Ltd.
- GN Land Developers
- Kim Future Vision (Kim Infrastructure & Developers Ltd.)
- PACL India Ltd.
- MKD Land Developers India Ltd.
- Kamal India Real Estate and Allied Ltd.
- Sarthak India Ltd.
- RBN Real Estate and Infrastructure India Ltd.
- Sai Prasad Food India Ltd. & Sai Prasad Properties
- Galav Leasing and Finance Ltd.
- GCA Marketing Ltd.
- Chanderlok Fin-vest Pvt. Ltd.
- State Citizen Sakh Sehkari Marya
- Madhur Tourism and Markential Pvt. Ltd.
- Madhur Dairy and Allied Ltd.
- Royal Sun Marketing

Pardaphash will bring you the status report of the CBI enquiry on these chit fund companies soon. If you are an investor in any such finance company, we advise you to stay alert otherwise you too can fall prey to the same.

Courtesy:
Published: Mon, 13 May 2013 at 03:30 IST
http://www.pardaphash.com/news/chit-fund-companies-defy-hc-order-cbi-probe-scamdance-continues/713059.html?device=android&w=1366&h=597

SEBI issued orders against 8 companies and 74 directors prohibiting from entering into capital market for 5 years

February 03, 2000
PR No. 31/2000

Action in respect of companies not complying with the listing agreement and not physically traceable at the registered address mentioned in the offer document.

SEBI today has issued 11B orders in respect of 8 companies and 74 directors prohibiting them from entering into the capital market for a period of 5 years.

With these orders SEBI has so far issued 11B orders in respect of 57 companies and 216 directors prohibiting them from associating in every respect from the capital market activities, not to deal in securities, not to access the capital market, and not be or be associated with any of the intermediaries in the capital market for a period of 5 years.

Department of Company Affairs have also initiated action in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 against these companies. Prosecution for non-filing of information in respect of 93 companies, prosecution under Section 209 A of the Companies Act in respect of 54 companies. Further action by the Department of Company Affairs in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 are in progress.

In addition to the joint action by SEBI and Department of Company Affairs, it has been decided to refer these cases to respective State Government also for action where cheating or fraud is observed. It may be stated here that these penal actions for which the State Governments are being approached both by SEBI and Department of Company Affairs is in addition to the penal action taken/ proposed to be initiated by the Department of Company Affairs. This was done because in the Co-ordination and Monitoring Committee comprising SEBI and Department of Company Affairs officials it was felt that fraud and cheating are the offences under the Indian Penal Code and could have been dealt only by the police Authorities of the respective State Governments. Besides punishment under the offences are far more severe.

SEBI has sought information from the investors about vanishing companies. SEBI has also issued public notice inviting information from the investors also. The companies referred by the investors are under scrutiny and action in terms of the provisions of the SEBI Act and the Companies Act, 1956 would be initiated once the identification process is completed.

NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AGAINST WHOM 11B ORDERS ARE TO BE ISSUED


Bafna Spinning Mills Ltd    
B Nagabhushanam, Director,
95 D, Sowbhagya Colony, KK Nagar, Chennai 600078

R Sudheendra, Technical Director,
Bafna House, 34, Oppannakara Street, Coimbatore 641001

Canara Credit Ltd    
Kushal Kumar Kankaria, Director,
5-9-777, Gun Foundry Hyderabad

Srinivas Alamuri, Director,
12-2-417/39, Saradha Nagar, Mehdi Pattnam, Hyderabad 500267

Cauvery Software Engg Systems Ltd     S M Shroff, 812,
Raheja Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai:

V Chandrasekhar, 4th Floor, Gaqlav Chambers, Sayajigunj, Baroda - 390 005

Crestworld Marine Ltd    
Md. Faiz Kasam Sait, Chairman,
AG-238/9, Shilok Apts, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40.

Md Azhar, Managing Director,
AG - 238 / 3, Shilok Apts, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40

Roy Verghese, Jt, M.D.
Ag - 238/3, Shilok Apts, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40

Deccan Petroleums Ltd    
K S Shetty, Nominee Director of IFCI, 8th Floor, Taramandal Hyderabad - 4.

Sripriya Varadharajan,
31, Venkaresa Agraharam, Mylapore, Chennai - 4

Subadra Sampath,
H NO 3-6-100, B/1, West Marredpalli, Secunderabad - 26.

Gopalan Sampath, H NO 3-6-100,
B/1, West Marredpalli, Secunderabad - 26.

Elektro Flames Ltd    
C Parthasarathy, 8-2-540/2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

Shyam Sunder Gupta,
Managing Director, 8-2-589/11, Road No 8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

Flora Wall Coverings Ltd    
MSA Aleem, Director,
36, Decosta Square, II Cross, Bangalore 560036

S Devi Prasad, Alternate Director to Mr.Fillipo Uecher,
No.4112, 14th Main (I Main) B Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore 560010

Fillipo Uecher, Director,
EMMEPI s.r.l. Via per Muzzano
13055 OCCHIEPPO, INFERIORE VC, ITALY

Global Exhibitions Ltd    
Gadde Shivaramaprasad, MD,
12-2-39/7, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad

J Gopalakrishna Murthy, Director,
4-46-11, Pedda Waltair Junction, Vishakapatnam- 17

Dr.Yalamanchi Sadashivarao, Director,
Diabetic Care Centre, Venkatrathnam Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada

G Satyanarayana, Director,
27-12-20, Ali Beig Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2

Murlidhar Gullapalli, Director,
6-3-609/173, Anandnagar Colony,, Khairathabad, Hyderabad 500483

Global Property Ltd    
N Mohanraj, Director, 593, DB Road, RS Puram, Coimbatore -2

Uma Maheshwar Srinivasan, Director,
BJORKHAGA Dannas, 330-12, Forsheda, SWEDEN

Kayesvee Educations Ltd    
KS Varadharajan, Chairman,
67-8, Bridge View Apts, Kodambakkam High Road, T Nagar, Chennai - 17

KV Bhaskar, Director,
67-8, Bridge View Apts, Kodambakkam High Road, T Nagar, Chennai - 17

KV Chandrasekhar, Director,
67-8, Bridge View Apts, Kodambakkam High Road, T Nagar, Chennai - 17

Ma Capital Services Ltd    
Dileep Krishna, Director,
F-4, Century Anchorage, 4th Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Chennai 41

Nagarjuna Jiyo Marines Ltd     R K Agarwal, Chairman,
B-32, Karthikeyan Salai, Periyar Nagar, Chennai -- 600 072

S Nagarjuna Rao, Director,
B-32, Karthikeyan Salai, Periyar Nagar, Chennai - 600 072

Nova Electro Magnetics Ltd    
Major Sarovar Anand Puri,
19 A, Jungpura Extn, New Delhi

V K Shakuja,
C 4E/28, LIC Flats, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058

Ocean Knits Ltd    
Prem Bajaj, Whole Time Director,
535, 8 A Main, IV Block, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034

Sadhuram P Patel Director,
P O Box NO: 2101, Dubai, UAE.

Prakash Ahuja, Director,
643 4th Cross, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034

R Kannan, Director,
543, 6th A Main, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034

Panggo Exports Ltd    
V Anna Durai,
13/5, Chakrapani Street, Extn, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033

S A Ganesan,
29, Chakrapani Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033

Mukul Daga,
63, Bhaiya Complex, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai - 600 007

Prism Foods Ltd    
M Ravindra, MD,
Pallavi Estate, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500873

M Nagapadma, Director,
Pallavi Estate, Srinagar Colony Hyderabad 500873

Rank Aqua Estates Ltd    
Somapalli Jayadev, MD,
Plot No.105, Road No.1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 34

Kanneganthi Srinivasa Rao,
Director,
310/2RT, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad 500452

DV Ramesh, Director,
Flat No.203, Shettypalli Apts, Road No.6, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad

Sai Gruha Finances & Engineering Ltd.    
Ramesh Sai Kumar,
My Home Hill View Apts, B-304, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

A Krishna Kumar,
Plot No: 8, Krishnareddy Nagar, Above U B I New Bowanpally, Secunderabad - 11

V V Narayana,
Chilakaluripet Road, Narasaraopet, Guntur Dt., A P

A Vasanta Kumari,
Plot No:8, Krishnareddy Nagar, Above U B I New Bowanpally, Secunderabad - 11

San Geo Services Ltd.    
B Aravind, Managing Director, 2, Budha Street, Rangarajapuram, Chennai - 600 024

Ratanpaul, Directror,
407, R N Guha Road, Dum Dum, Calcutta - 700 074

S B Nalla Mala,
Director, 4153, Alistair Road, Winston Salem North Corolina, USA - 27104

Rama Devi,
Director, 2, Budha Street, Rangarajapuram, Chennai - 600 024

Shakthi Sai Flowers & Tissues Ltd    
Sheik Ismail
6-3-563/A/1, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad

Ch. Nageswar Rao,
Flat NO: G -1, Sri Sai Apartments, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad

B Venkat Rao,
1-8-27/14/A/7, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad

Southern Herbals Ltd    
K S S Rajan, Managing Director,
85-86, BHCS/BTM II Stage, II Cross, III Main, Banerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 076

K S N Murthy, Jt. Managing Director,
85-86, BHCS/BTM II Stage, II Cross, III Main, Banerghatta Road, Bangalore-76

Smt L B C Prabha,
85-86, BHCS/BTM II Stage, II Cross, III Main, Banerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 076

SSP Polymer Industries Ltd    
N S S Prasad,
55, Sudha Nagar Colony, Old Safilguda, R K Puram Post, Hyderabad - 500 556

Venkatachalam Iyer,
Flat NO:103, I Floor, Shree Hayagriva Complex, St John's Road, Secunderabad- 25

Suraj Stone Corporation LTd.    
DK Nahatha, Chairman,
196, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta 700001

Jagat Singh Dugar, MD,
36/3, South End Park, Calcutta 29

L Nowalkha, Executive Director,
13/1, 12th Main Road, Vijaya Nagar, Bangalore

Shashank Jain, Director,
J-56, Sector 25, Noida, UP 201301

Naresh Kumar Bhargawa, Director,
417, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur

P Gopalakrishna, Director,
292/5, Bally Court, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40

KK Garg, Director,
C-15, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-15
AK Chakravarthy, Director, 28A, Gariahat Road, Calcutta 29

Vini Meta Spin Steels Ltd    
G Vijayakumar, Director,
1-9-327, Vidhya Nagar, Hyderabad

Vision Technology India Ltd.    
VS Ranga, Chairman,
110 Kengal Hanumanthiya Road, Bangalore 560027

BR Vasanth, MD,
110 Kengal Hanumanthiya Road, Bangalore 560027

BR Shamala,
110 Kengal Hanumanthiya Road, Bangalore 560027

H Krishnan,
Director, 53, Swarna Chapel Lane, Santacruz West, Mumbai 54

Courtesy:
http://www.watchoutinvestors.in/Press_Release/sebi/2000031.asp

‘Funding’ corruption

Somaiya alleges massive chit fund fraud in state with political patronage

Former BJP MP Kirit Somaiya yesterday alleged of a massive chit fund scam running into Rs.10,000 crores involving 10 lakh small time investors and 100 odd Ponzi companies brewing in the state.

Speaking to newspersons at Mantralaya, the BJP leader alleged that two years after the Speak Asia scam came to light the government has not woken up to repeated complaints. He added that such chit funds by Ponzi companies were not possible without the tacit support of those in power.

The former BJP MP alleged that NCP Minister for Tribal Development had inaugurated party worker Baba Gaikwad’s agent office of Ponzi firm Sai Prasad Group at Pimpri-Chinchwad. He said that in one such case Pune ACB trapped local police trying to settle a case of Samruddhi Jivan Foods a Ponzi company from Jalgaon for Rs.65 lakhs. Somaiya stated that despite giving documents and list of 31 such companies, five of whom which are headquartered in Maharashtra six months ago but no action was taken.

Accusing the Mumbai EOW of cover-up deals, he wanted to know why the probe was being stalled.

Somaiya wanted the government to issue warning to owners of all these companies not to indulge in chit fund activities, caution the small investors against investing in such companies. He further demanded that the government immediately set up task force of market regulators and investigators like RBI, Sebi, Company Affairs, Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and EOW to investigate Ponzi companies which are promising 20 to 25 percent returns on investments in just a year.

The former BJP MP argued that after the Speak Asia scam surfaced some of the 100 odd Ponzi companies saw their investment capital grow from Rs.5 crores to Rs.500 crores. He stated that in March last the Centre informed the Lok Sabha that there were no Ponzi companies operating in Maharashtra.

Somaiya alleged that such companies could not be flourishing in the state without political patronage.
Courtesy:
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
By Prashant Hamine
http://www.afternoondc.in/city-news/funding-corruption/article_81442

'18 real estate companies under scanner for forgeries'

NEW DELHI: Government on Friday said complaints were received against 27 real estate firms across the country for alleged forgeries and dubious investment schemes, out of which 18 are being probed by different regulatory and enforcement agencies.

Giving a list of these 27 entities, the finance ministry said that complaints against seven of them are being examined by Sebi, while the markets regulator has prima facie found two other firms to be running Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) and suitable actions are being taken against them. In a written reply to Lok Sabha, the ministry also said that an examination by Sebi did not find any CIS violations at nine entities.

Besides, action has already been initiated by different agencies against another eight companies - namely Alchemist Infra Reality, PACL, KBCL India, SGS Agro Farm, RBN Real Estate and Allied India, Maitreya Plotters and Structurals, Megacity Bangalore Developers and Builders and Sai Prasad Properties.

In one case, complaint has been taken with the company (Jain Housing and Constructions Hyderabad) and the reply is awaited. Those having been found by Sebi to be running CIS scheme without approval include Ecogreen Real Estate India and Ken Infratech.

Besides, Sebi is still examining complaints against Nicer Green Housing, Imbowers Housing and Infrastructure, IHI Developers India, Servehit Housing and Infrastructure, Taneja Developers and Infrastructure (Panipat), Royal Infra Towers and Maxworth Buildtech. Providing the details, minister of state in the finance ministry, Namo Narain Meena, also said that the government is considering a bill for setting up of a Real Estate Regulatory Authority and a Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in each state with powers to ensure transparency and quick redressal of grievances and disputes.
Courtesy:
PTI Apr 27, 2013, 04.55AM IST
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-27/india-business/38860991_1_collective-investment-scheme-finance-ministry-sebi

SEBI Order Against Sai Prasad Properties Ltd. to Stop Chit Fund Scheme

WTM/SR/ERO-CIS/ 15/07/2013
 

BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, MUMBAI
CORAM: S. RAMAN, WHOLE TIME MEMBER

ORDER

Under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with  Regulation 65 of the SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 in respect of Sai Prasad Properties Ltd. and its Directors,  Mr. Balasaheb K. Bhapkar and Mrs. Vandana B. Bhapkar


1.             Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI") had received a letter dated August 17, 2012, from the Office of the Registrar of Companies Goa, Daman & Diu (hereinafter referred  to as "ROC"), regarding an inspection conducted in the matter of M/s. Sai Prasad Properties Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "SPPL"), under Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956.   An extract of the  Inspection Report of SPPL, as carried out by the ROC, was also enclosed with the said letter, which interalia states that: “it is observed from the details furnished by the company that the company is accepting amount from the associates for scheme with periods of investment ranging from 4 years to 9 years and executing joint venture agreements after 1 year and 3 years for the schemes of onetime payment and the installment scheme respectively”. The ROC, vide the above said letter, requested SEBI to take appropriate action against SPPL in respect of violation of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992.

2.             Pursuant to the above, SEBI had sought the following documents/information from SPPL, vide letter dated September 12, 2012, as a part of preliminary enquiry and to see whether SPPL is carrying out any collective investment scheme (CIS) activities in terms of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter  referred to as "SEBI Act") and/or SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "CIS Regulations"), :

i.              Memorandum  and  Articles  of  Association  of  SPPL  as  filed  with  the  Registrar  of Companies.

ii.             Details of the past and present directors of the SPPL.

iii.            Brochures pertaining to schemes/ offers which were made available to the public.

iv.            Copies of application forms that were required to be submitted by investors/applicant to participate in schemes offered by SPPL.

v.             Sample copies of the registration letter and allotment letter issued to the investors who subscribed to schemes offered by SPPL.

vi.            Sample   copies   of   the   agreement   letter/contract   required   to   be   entered   into   by investor/applicant under schemes offered by SPPL.

vii.           Details of the scheme wise amount mobilized by SPPL till date along with the number of investors under the schemes offered by SPPL.

viii.          Certified copy of audited financial statement for the FY 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. ix. Copy of Income Tax Return filed by SPPL for the last three years.

x.             Details of the regulatory approvals obtained by SPPL, if any, for provision of accidental death/disability benefits to investor, under schemes offered by SPPL.

xi.            Details  of any other  similar  scheme(s),  if any,  floated  by SPPL or  its  group/associate companies.

3.             Vide its reply dated October 26, 2012, SPPL submitted the following documents/information, viz. –

i.              Copies of Memorandum and Articles of Association

ii.             List of Directors

iii.            Copies of audited financial statement for FY 2009-10 and 2010-11 iv.   Copies of income tax returns for the last three years

4.             As SPPL, through its aforementioned reply, had furnished incomplete information, SEBI vide another letter dated April 5, 2013, had advised SPPL to furnish the remaining information as sought  vide  earlier  letter  dated  September  12,  2012  and  had  also  sought  the  following additional information, viz. –
i)              Details of "land bank" allotted to "joint venture associates" as guarantee/warrantee.
ii)             Details of amount refunded to "joint venture associates".

5.             SPPL, vide letter dated April 12, 2013, furnished a copy of annual report for the year ending 2011-12 and details of "land bank". However, the details of scheme wise amount mobilized with  number  of  investors  ,  sample  copies  of  the  registration  letter  and  allotment  letter, agreement form, brochure, details of any other similar scheme(s), if any, floated by SPPL or its group/associate companies etc., as sought by SEBI, were not furnished by SPPL. SPPL also stated that they do not have any schemes and they are carrying out "joint venture participation projects".  Further,  it  was  also  submitted  by SPPL that  "expected  refund  of joint venture participation would be initiated from 01, September 2013, as per the joint venture agreement of SPPL with respect to the co-ventures".

6.             In the meanwhile, SEBI received a letter dated September 6, 2012 from Ministry of Finance enclosing a copy of the order dated July 13, 2012, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in the matter of Dharmvir Singh and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Writ petition No. 3332 of 2010 (PIL)]. Upon perusal of the aforesaid order, it was observed that –
i.              The Petitioners therein had filed a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as "PIL") seeking order of enquiry against various financial companies including SPPL. The petitioners had pleaded that thousands of persons of various districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh had been cheated by various finance companies under the garb of various schemes, which used to collect deposits from the persons with a promise to pay the money back with higher return of interest ranging from 15%-20%.
ii.             Pursuant to the above petition, the Hon'ble Court, vide Order dated July 5, 2011 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI") to conduct the preliminary investigation regarding the activities of such companies.
iii.   The findings of the CBI in respect of SPPL (as mentioned in the order dated July 13, 2012, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench )were as follows:

a.             The details provided by the company, M/s Sai Prasad Properties Ltd., has revealed that there are total 13,49,616 customers with the company in which 2,34,716 are under one- time  payment  plan  while  11,14,900  are  under  installment  plan. Further, only  157 customers have been issued allotment letters and the land allotted against these allotment letters is 1,64,495 sq. ft.  No sale deed has been executed by the company with any of its customers  while 456  customers  have been  given  refund  claims  on  completion  of the agreement period.

b.             In the details provided by the company during the enquiry it has been mentioned by the representative that no sale deed has been executed by the company with the customers, as the company has to execute the sale deed only if it fails to refund the agreed amount to the customers at the end of the agreement period.  This clearly indicates that the company is only into accepting deposits and not into the sale of land.   This indicates that both the company  (SPPL  & Sai  Prasad  Foods  Ltd  –a  group  company  of  SPPL)  are  simply collecting deposits from the investors without any registration with RBI.

c.             SPPL  follows  a  hierarchy  of  agents  involving  10  levels,  for  the  purpose  of  getting business. These  are  from  the  level  of  Field  Representatives  to  the  level  of  Chief Controller. The  company  also  gives  commission  to  senior  up-line  members  on  the business  brought  by  the  junior  most  level  against  the  booking  of  plots. In  case  of installment payment plan, the commission percentage is 20% for the Field Representative in the first  year, and further commission is distributed till the highest level of Chief Controller but goes on reducing upwards the hierarchy and is 2 per cent at the top most level.   In the similar way under  cash down payment plan this is 6 to 9 % to the Field Representatives and is 0.5 % at the top most level.

d.             There have been several complaints against the company.  The complaints were examined during  the   course  of  enquiry.  It  was  revealed  that  neither  the  company  nor  its representatives / agents  have at any time intimated the investors that the plan being offered by the company is in anyway  related to purchase of land in its name. Some investors emphasized that had it been in their knowledge that the money was for allotment of land units, they would have never gone in for the investment plans. They also said that they invested with the company as the plans of the company seemed to be lucrative in comparison to that of Government sponsored schemes.  Further, only a few investors had the knowledge that the company will be investing their deposits in land and at the end of the maturity period they would be getting the amount as mentioned in the certificates issued by the company.  No allotment letters were found issued by the company to any of its customers who had made the required payments.   The amounts of the investors who had made complaints with the Collector, Gwalior have been refunded without interest by the company. Examination of one of the investors also revealed that the company has also floated yearly Income Scheme in its policies/plans.

e.             Thus from the above it is indicated that the company is not actually into the business of sale of land  as claimed by it but are receiving deposits and floating investment policies without registration with RBI.

7.  On the basis of the above report filed by CBI, the Hon'ble High Court vide the afore-mentioned Order dated July 13, 2012, observed that "the authorities of the organizations are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law." The Hon'ble Court had directed the Principal Registrar to forward the copy of the said order to the various authorities including SEBI to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

8.             It is also noted that SEBI also received a reference dated October 1, 2012, from the Ministry of Corporate  Affairs (MCA) stating that “an inspection of Books and Accounts of SPPL was ordered  by  the  Ministry  vide  its  letter  dated  08/07/2011.  During  the  course  of  the  said inspection it was observed by the concerned Inspecting Officer therein that SPPL had violated the provisions of Section 11AA of SEBI Act”. A copy of the relevant extract of the Inspection Report was also forwarded to SEBI by MCA for taking further necessary action. Further, SEBI had  received  a complaint dated  October  15,  2012,  against SPPL,  from the  Investors  and Consumer Guidance Society inter alia alleging “illegal collections to the tune of  1000’s of crores by Sai Prasad Properties Ltd Reg no U7200GA2008PLC005799- similar to Pearls Group-   PACL-PGFL   modus   operandi.”   The   complainant   also   forwarded   brochures, Agreement  Form,  Rule  Book  and  other  documents  pertaining  to  SPPL  in  respect  of  the scheme/plans, along with the complaint.

9.  In view of the aforementioned reports and references from different authorities and the complaint received  by  SEBI  in  respect  of  the  schemes  launched  by  SPPL,  and  also  in  view  of  the aforementioned observations by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, I find it necessary to proceed further with the matter, on the basis of available material on record. The issue under consideration is to ascertain whether or not the mobilization of funds by SPPL under the scheme is a 'CIS' in accordance with Section 11AA of the SEBI Act.

10.          Upon  perusal of  the  documents  and  other  materials  available  on record,  viz; the  sample Agreement for “Joint Venture Association” (hereinafter referred to as ‘agreement’), Allocation letter, Rule Book, Brochure,  Memorandum of Association and other materials in connection with the plan or schemes offered by  SPPL, and also various references and reports from authorities like MCA, CBI etc., it is prima facie observed that –

i.              SPPL was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (CIN: U70200GA2008PLC005799) on June 12, 2008 and has its registered office in Sai Plaza Complex, 4th Floor, Office No. 402, Opposite Gomantak Times, Panjim, Goa – 403301 and corporate office in Empire Estate, Building CB – 1, Office NO. 202 & 203, Chinchwad, Pune, Maharashtra – 411019.

ii.             The Directors of SPPL are Shri Balasaheb K Bhapkar and Mrs. Vandana B Bhapkar. 

iii.            As per the memorandum of association of SPPL and also as per the brochure, the main object of  SPPL is to carry on the business of building and developing residential and commercial properties  and to carry on the business as promoters, builders, developers, construction and maintenance contractors of industrial buildings, shed, warehouse, shopping malls, multiplexes, hutments and structures and for that purpose undertake development of land,  buildings,  renovate,  enlarge,  extend,  pull down,  re-build  and  prepare  layouts  for building and construction activities.

iv.            Further, it is noted from the brochure issued by SPPL that the following are shown under the header other objects:-
               "to issue units to the public and associates to attain the main object of SPPL.
               to acquire and develop agricultural land and to lease/rent out or sell the farm or farm house for agricultural purpose."

v.             SPPL enters into agreement, which the SPPL refers as  "Agreement for Joint Venture Association"  (hereinafter referred to as 'agreement'), with investors or “joint venture associates”; as referred by SPPL in the sample agreement (hereinafter referred to as "associates"); to raise money, by issuing units.

vi.            I further note that SPPL has offered various schemes viz; installment payment plan (4 schemes), onetime payment plan (3 Schemes), monthly income plan (2 schemes) and yearly income plan (2 schemes). One of the plans from each category is illustrated below:

a)  Installments Payment Plan ‘AP’ for 54 months/ 41/2 years:


b)            One Time Payment Plan ‘EP’ for 66 months/ 5 ½ years: 


* 1 Unit = 500 Sq. Ft. Area of land.

c)             Monthly Income Plan ‘HP’ for 72 months/ 6 years:
 

d)            Yearly Income Plan ‘JP’ for 72 months/ 6 years:

 
vii. In addition to the return offered under the relevant plan i.e. expected refund of participation, an "associate" is also offered accidental death compensation under the scheme

viii. SPPL allocates land as per the ratio – 1 Unit or Rs. 12000 equivalent to 500 sq. ft. area of land.  The 500 Sq. Ft. of undivided land is allocated as a guarantee to repay the maturity amount  of  the   investment  plan  as   per   the  certificate   issued   to  the   "associates". Determination of place of land depends on availability of land at the time of agreement.

ix. As  per  Clause 15  (6)  of Rule book,  all development process  would  be performed  by management of behalf of "associates".

10.1.  Further, on examination of the various clauses in the agreement executed between SPPL and the "associates", the following clauses are noted:-
  • "WHEREAS the company is carrying on business of building and developing residential and   commercial  properties  and  to  carry  on  the  business  as  promoters,  builders, developers, .............."
  • "AND WHEREAS  the company is hereby authorized to enter into Agreement for borrow, to raise money or secure the payment of money or receive money by way of Joint Venture or otherwise in such manner as the company may determine, and further authorized to invest or otherwise employ the money belonging or entrusted to the company in movable or immovable properties or in securities  or  in such other manner as may be deemed expedient".
  • "AND WHEREAS  the company has launched various schemes/ plans to borrow or raise the money, to raise money to secure the payment of money and launch the various plans including the installment , payment plans described in plan AP, BP, CP and KP so also one time payment plan  EP, FP and GP for various periods in pursuance of rules and regulations made thereof including the expected sum payable on expiry of the said term and also consisting of the accidental compensation as contemplated in the said plans".
  • "AND WHEREAS  Company is issuing the certificates to enable the company to raise the finance especially described in the plan AP to EP, KP & GP hereinafter described and the party of the Second part came to know about the investment in said plan and agreed to investment in company & to join him in Joint Venture with a view to carryout and complete the said finance raising object as joint venture the party of the second part has number  of  meeting  with  company,  discussed  the   scheme  in  detailed  and  other understanding the same fully agreed to enter into this Joint Venture ship Agreement on the terms and conditions mentioned herein".
  • The party of the second part have contributed with the company the sum of Rs. ............ onwards Rs. Only of the ............. certificate in category  ............ plans dated  ……….. and on          maturity the ………. Sum assured   is payable             to ………… the     extent of  Rs. ………….   and the party of the second part will contribute such further amounts as may be desired by him from time to time for carrying out the said work and the amounts will be treated as a participation made by him to the company in the participation plans of the company repayable to the party of the second part as per terms and conditions of the Certificate, Rule book & Agreement.(Clause 2)
  • The company will look after the financial side of the participation plans as well as look after the administration of the company and its said business and the party of the second part will have no nexus right of the shares or share capital of the company or to interfere the company or the management and the policies of the company or/ otherwise the board of directors will have sole and  absolutely discretionary powers as per the companies laws.(Clause 4)
  • "That the company has insured the life of Joint Venture with the New India InsuranceCompany’s ......." (Clause 9)
  •  That through this Agreement the Company has being collateral secured for realization of amount of  said plan as agreed, issued letter of allocation of land with a ratio of Rs. 12000 of participation equal to 500 sq.ft of land..........
  • "It is agreed by & between the parties that this is Agreement for Joint Venture Associate and shall not be treated partnership with the company by joint venture. Once repayment of participation is made to the associate then this agreement along with allocation letter will be automatically cancelled." (Clause 19)
  • "Once full and final payment of said certificate is paid to the associates, this joint venture agreement   is  automatically  stands  cancelled  and  the  said  land  allocated  to  the associates,  becomes  free  from  holding  of  associate  and  company  thereafter  as  full holding of land." (Clause 24)

11. The abovementioned details of the scheme offered by SPPL, have to be considered in light of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, which reads as follows:

"11AA (1) Any scheme or arrangement which satisfies the conditions referred to in subsection (2) shall be a collective investment scheme.

(2) Any scheme or arrangement made or offered by any company under which,
(i) the contributions, or payments made by the investors, by whatever name called, are pooled and utilized solely for the purposes of the scheme or arrangement;
(ii) the contributions or payments are made to such scheme or arrangement by the investors with a view to receive profits, income, produce or property, whether movable or immovable from such scheme or arrangement;
(iii) the property, contribution or investment forming part of scheme or arrangement, whether identifiable or not, is managed on behalf of the investors;
(iv) the investors do not have day to day control over the management and operation of the scheme or arrangement."

12. In this context I note that -

12.1. SPPL, by way of the scheme, raises money by issuing units to the "associates". As per the terms and conditions of the agreement and the Memorandum of Association of SPPL, such mobilization of funds  is  to meet the main object, i.e carrying out business of building residential and  commercial  properties.  It  is  also  noted  that  SPPL,  for  the  purpose  of soliciting funds from public, has opened  a number of "Associate Service Centres" and "Collection Centres" which are spread across the states  of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Jharkand, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh etc. It is noted that such contribution made by "associates" in response to the plans offered  under the scheme i.e. participation value in the form of monthly instalments or onetime payment in lieu of units are pooled and utilized by SPPL for the purposes of the plan.

12.2. It is observed that SPPL also undertakes to the "associates" to pay the estimated returns of investment plans on maturity as per the terms agreed. In this context, it is noted from the table (a) (related to plan offered by SPPL), shown in previous paragraphs, it can be seen that if participant invested Rs.6000 in AP plan, expected return is offered as Rs. 8250 along with accidental death compensation. Similarly, it can  be seen from table (b) under the header "One time Payment Plan" that if a participant invested Rs. 3000 in EP plan, expected return offered is Rs. 6000 (after 66 months) along with accidental death  compensation. Further, different returns were offered in different plans as stated in the above mentioned tables. Hence, the contribution was made by the "associates" with the view to receive profit or income (in case of monthly/yearly income plan).

12.3. On examination of the various clauses of the agreement, it is noticed that SPPL is managing the financial side of the participation plan as well as the administration of SPPL and its said business. The property of SPPL shall be used exclusively for the business of SPPL and the "associates" shall not have any right, title and interest in connection therewith. Further, it is noted that the allotment of units of land is only for the purpose of "collateral security" and no specification or identification of the land is given in the agreement. Hence it appears that the "associates" are not aware of the land purported to be allotted to  them. Further, it is noted that the land so allocated can be disposed of only with the help of SPPL. Moreover, it is observed from the Rule book that all development process would be performed by SPPL of behalf of "associates". These particulars primafacie  indicate  that  the  property, contribution or investment forming part of the scheme, is managed by SPPL on behalf of the investors.

12.4. I further note that, Clause 15 (6) of the Rule Book clearly states that all development process would  be  performed  by  the  management  (SPPL)  on  behalf  of  "associates"  and  the "associates" do not have  day to day control over the management and operation of the schemes, which primafacie satisfies the sub-clause (iv) of Section 11 AA(2).

13.  In light of the above analysis, it appears that schemes offered by SPPL primafacie satisfy all the conditions referred in Section 11AA (2) of the SEBI Act.

14.  Having primafacie found that SPPL is carrying out fund mobilization by way of CIS activities, I proceed further to examine the reply made by SPPL in respect of its scheme. As stated in the forgoing paragraph, SPPL in its reply dated 26/10/2012 and 12/04/2013 submitted as follows:-
  • "....the collective investment scheme indicated in your letter do not fall under any of the provisions laid down for the purpose of joint venture system of participation of our company's domain."
  • "......we do not have any such scheme for our joint venture participation projects under  the  different  business  domain  and  nor  we  have  any  such  investors  of  the Company and in place  we have co-venturers who actually participate in the joint venture projects of different  dimensions .....we have joint venture agreements duly certified by the co-venturers....".
15. I note that the main contention put forth by SPPL is that the  scheme is for the  purpose of a  " joint venture  system of participation". It is also noted that SPPL has referred the agreement entered into between SPPL and "associates" as "Agreement for Joint Venture Association" and the persons investing in the said scheme are referred as "joint venturer" or "associates".  I further note that, in its letter dated 12/10/2012, SPPL has quoted the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in New Horizons Ltd. vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 478] regarding the nature of a joint venture. The observations are as follows:-

“The expression ‘joint venture’ … connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in  the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share risks. It requires a community of interest in the performance of the subject matter, a right to direct and govern the policy in connection therewith, and duty, which may be altered by agreement, to share both in profit and losses. [Black's Law Dictionary; Sixth Edition, p. 839].”

16. I observe that the categorization of any scheme as “joint venture” is not determinative of its nature and character; the same has to be determined with reference to the terms and conditions of such scheme, which  express the intention of the parties. Upon analysis of the instant “joint venture” offered by SPPL in terms  of the “Agreement for Joint Venture Association” in the context of the abovementioned observations of the  Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I note the following –
i. The “joint venture” in question is not a partnership between SPPL and the "associate" for the furtherance of a commercial enterprise but rather an arrangement which provides for a monetary  return on the investment made by such "associate". Further, such “joint venture” stands cancelled once repayment of participation is made to such" associate".
ii. Under the instant “joint venture”, there is no shared control. The "associate" is excluded from the financial aspect of the “joint venture”. Further, such "associate" or investor will have  no  right  to   interfere  in  the  “joint  venture”  since  SPPL  exercises  complete managerial and administrative control over the plans offered therein.

16.1. From the findings of the CBI (contained in the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court order dated July 13, 2012), it is noted that there are total 13,49,616  "associates" or investors with SPPL in which 2,34,716 are under one-time payment plan while 11,14900 are under Installment Plan. In this context, I find it difficult to accept that SPPL has entered into a “joint venture” with such a huge number of "associates". I find that the claimed existence of a "joint venture" between SPPL and the "associates" is preposterous, since such venture  has arisen from separate agreements between SPPL and 13,49,616  individual "associates". I find that such venture has also resulted in a common pool of contribution received from such individual "associates".

17. In view of the above analysis,  I prima facie find  that the scheme offered by SPPL having nomenclature “joint venture” is not a joint venture in accordance with law but rather such term has been used by SPPL to camouflage its fund mobilizing activity which is in the nature of a ''CIS' in order to mislead and attract investment from general public. Therefore, the contention put forth by SPPL that it is carrying out a “joint venture” is not acceptable.

18. I note that the main characteristics of a 'CIS' are prima facie found in the instant scheme offered by SPPL. In  this regard, we may refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.G.F Ltd. & Ors. vs. UOI & Anr. (MANU/SC/0247/2013);

"........ sub-section (2) of Section 11AA, held that: "..sub-section (2) of Section 11 AA, which  defines  a collective investment scheme disclose that it is not restricted to any particular commercial activity such as in a shop or any other commercial establishment or even agricultural operation or transportation or shipping or entertainment industry etc. The definition only seeks to  ascertain and identify any scheme or arrangement, irrespective of the nature of business, which attracts investors to invest their funds at the instance of someone else who comes forward to promote such scheme or arrangement in any field and such scheme or arrangement provides for the  various  consequences to result there from."

19. In view of the abovementioned observations, I find that the SEBI Act is applicable to 'CIS' that engage in inviting investment or contribution from investors for investing in any asset/property, etc. which interalia  result in a return on such investment. In this regard, the activity of fund mobilization  by  SPPL  under  the  instant  scheme  with  a  resultant  promise  of  returns  when considered  in  light  of  the  other  features  of  such  scheme,  as  discussed  in  the  proceeding paragraphs, prima facie falls within the ambit of 'CIS' as defined under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act.

20. I note that in terms of Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act, "no person shall sponsor or cause to be sponsored  or  cause  to  be  carried  on  a  'collective  investment  scheme'  unless  he  obtains  a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with the regulations”. Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations provides that no person other than a Collective Investment Management Company which has obtained a certificate under the CIS Regulations shall carry on or sponsor or launch a 'CIS'. Therefore, the launching of any 'CIS' by any ‘person’ without obtaining the certificate of registration in terms of the provisions of the CIS Regulations is in contravention of Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations. In this regard, I note that SPPL has not obtained any certificate of registration under the CIS Regulations for its fund mobilizing activity from the public, under the instant scheme offered by it.

21.  In view of the prima facie finding that SPPL is engaged in the fund mobilizing activity from public which satisfies all the ingredients of a 'CIS', without obtaining a certificate of registration from SEBI as required under Section 12 (1B) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations, it has violated Section 12 (1B) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations read  with Section 11AA  of  the  SEBI  Act,  1992.  It is  further  noted  that Shri Balasaheb K Bhapkar and Mrs. Vandana B Bhapkar are the directors who are in charge of and responsible for the day to day affairs of SPPL.

22. As discussed in paragraphs 16 & 17 above, I find that the instant scheme offered by SPPL under the nomenclature "joint venture" is nothing but a camouflage for its fund mobilizing activity. I find such fund mobilizing activity falls within the ambit of 'CIS' as defined under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act and the same has been carried out by SPPL without due registration from SEBI. In this context I note that the protection  of  the interest of investors is the first and foremost mandate for SEBI. Further, in order to ensure that SPPL does not collect further funds under its schemes and to safeguard the assets/property, acquired by SPPL and  its promoters/directors from the funds of the investing public until full facts and materials are brought and final decision is taken in the matter, it becomes necessary for SEBI to take urgent preventive action by way of this  interim  measure.  In  the  light  of  the  same  and  as  SPPL  did  not  submit  complete details/information as sought by SEBI, I find no other alternative but to take recourse through an interim measure against SPPL for preventing it from further carrying on with its fund mobilizing activity by launching " CIS' without registration from SEBI in accordance with law.

23. In view of the forgoing, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 65 of CIS Regulations, hereby direct SPPL and its directors/promoters, including Shri Balasaheb K Bhapkar and Mrs. Vandana B Bhapkar;-
a. not to collect any more money from investors under the existing schemes;
b. not to launch any new schemes or plans;
c. not to dispose of or alienate any of the properties or assets owned or acquired in respect of or in pursuance of the plans or schemes or earmarked /allotted to the "associates" under the plans/schemes.
d. not to divert any fund raised from public at large which are kept in bank account(s) and/or in the custody of SPPL.

24. The above directions shall take effect immediately and shall be in force until further orders.

25. This Order shall be treated as a show cause notice and SPPL and its above mentioned directors may show cause as to why the plans/schemes identified in this Order should not be held as a 'CIS' in terms of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act and CIS Regulations and why appropriate directions under the SEBI Act and CIS Regulations, including directions in terms of Regulation 65 and 73 of the CIS Regulations should not be issued against them.

26. SPPL and its above mentioned directors shall, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order, file their objections/reply, if any, to this Order. SPPL and its directors may also indicate, in such reply, if they wishes to avail an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter.

S RAMAN
WHOLE TIME MEMBER
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Date : July 17, 2013          
Place: Mumbai