BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 22.08.2019
Misc. Application No. 397 of 2019
And
Appeal No. 316 of 2019
1. Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd.
B- 5, Hotel Aathithya Palace
Complex, 2013 Junction Road,
SonkhAdda, Mathura – 281 001
(UP).
2. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh
88, Poonam Vihar, Lajpat Nagar,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 001.
3. Mrs. Guddi Devi
88, Poonam Vihar, Lajpat Nagar,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 001.
4. Mr. Krishna Pal Singh
H. No. 8, Kailash Nagar,
Near Amarnath School, Mathura,
(UP) – 281 001.
5. Mr. Rajendra Singh Thakur
Village Jachoda, Dist Mathura,
(UP) – 281 001.
6. Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh
Village Bankota, Dist. Badaun,
(UP) – 202 526.
7. Mr. Nathu Singh
10/2, Veterinary College,
Mathura – 281 001 (UP).

2
8. Mr. Raksha Pal Singh
130/21, Gopal Nagar,
Govind Nagar,
Mathura, UP – 281 001.
9. Mr. Pooran Prakash
Village Mahmadpur,
Block – Goverdhan,
Dist – Mathura, 281 502 (UP).
10. Mr. Devendra Pal Singh
1/36, Surendra Nagar, Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh 202 137.
11. Smt. Rajeshwari Senegar
H. No. 190, Chhatikara,
Dist Mathura – 281 001 (UP).

….. Appellants
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.

…… Respondent
Mr. M. S. Bhardwaj, Advocate i/b MSB Legal for the Appellants.
Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody,
Mr. Sushant Yadav, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the
Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
3
Misc. Application No. 397 of 2019 :
1.

There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons
stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Misc. Application is allowed.

Appeal No. 316 of 2019 :
1.

Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred
to as, ‘SEBI’) passed an order dated July 3, 2015 holding M/s.
Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd. was engaged in operating Collective
Investment Scheme (CIS) by mobilizing funds from the public in
contravention of Section 12(1B) of the Securities and Exchange
Board of India Act, 1992 and consequently, in order to protect the
interest of the investors in the securities market, SEBI directed the
company and its directors to wind up the collective investment
schemes and refund the money collected within the period of three
months.

2.

The said order was challenged before this Tribunal which was
disposed of on the strength of the submission made by the appellants
that irrespective of the fact as to whether this scheme was CIS or not,
the appellants were willing to refund the amount to the investors. On
4
the basis of this statement, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by an
order dated November 23, 2017 permitting the appellants to make the
representation setting out in details the names of the investors and
quantum of the amount already refunded and the mode and the
manner in which the balance amount would be refunded.

3.

Based on the aforesaid direction, a representation was filed by
the appellants giving the details of the amount which was required to
be paid by the company and also gave a list showing the amount paid
/ refunded to the investors.

The list of payments made did not
indicate the manner and the mode of repayment and consequently,
SEBI directed the appellants to provide details of the manner in
which the payments were made to the investors. Since no details
were supplied, the representation of the appellants was rejected by
the impugned order dated February 28, 2019. The appellants being
aggrieved by the said order have filed the present appeal.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we find
from the list that was supplied to SEBI that only the date and the
amount have been mentioned in the list. No details as to how this
amount was paid, viz, by way of cash or by cheque or by RTGS etc.,
has not been indicated. Specific details were asked which has not
been supplied. Thus, the list that was supplied became a suspect.

5
Further, nothing was indicated with regard to the mode and the
manner in which the balance amount would be refunded.

5.

In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the
representation filed by the appellants was rightly rejected.

The
impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error of law. The
appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C. K. G. Nair
Member
22.08.2019
Prepared & Compared by
PTM