Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The brief background of the case is that the Golden Forests (India) Ltd (GFIL) was incorporated in 1987. Between the years 1991 and 1997, its promoters set up over 100 companies, including Golden Tourist Resorts and Developers Ltd (1991), Golden Lease Finance Ltd (1994) Golden Projects Ltd (1996), Himachal Country Resorts Ltd, etc (hereafter called "GFIL group"). Golden Projects Ltd introduced a number of investment schemes promising handsome returns lured investors and depositors, and in 9-10 years collected several hundred crores of WP( C) 1399/2010 Page 1 rupees. Huge tracts of lands and property were acquired by it; likewise a large number of properties were acquired in the name of Golden Tourist Resorts and Developers Ltd and others in the name of Himachal Country Resorts Ltd and some other companies.
3. The GFIL group were controlled controlled by a family consisting of A. L. Syal, R. K. Syal, Neena Syal, Pamila Syal, Bimla Syal (since dead), H. K. Sinha (Brother in Law of R. K. Syal). In 1997, the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) inquired into the activities of GFIL group and a two member Committee was constituted. Its report was submitted on 21-04-1998. The report highlighted financial and other irregularities committed by the company. A writ petition was filed in the Bombay High Court by SEBI in which an order was passed against GFIL restraining it from alienating the properties; a similar order was passed by this High Court in the same year. SEBI on 09-01-1998 made an order prohibiting the company from alienating its properties. Justice M. L. Pendse (Retired) was appointed as Receiver and certain properties were earmarked for sale, but the Receiver could not sell the properties. GFIL, in the meanwhile continued to accept deposits, carrying business and alienating properties. In this background, winding up proceedings, being CP No 60/ 2001 (National Investor Forum vs. Golden Forests (India) Ltd) was preferred before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2001. The Company Judge by order dated 18.6.2003 directed that all properties of the company would be managed, controlled, regulated by a provisional liquidator, who shall have power to sell the moveable and immovable property. Further, vide order dated 20.6.2003, Justice R.N. Aggarwal was appointed Provisional Liquidator.

5. The Committee had, during pendency of the matters before the Supreme Court, invited claims from the depositors/investors of Golden Forests (India) Ltd by advertisement dated 25.10.2004. As required by the Supreme Court, the period for the receipt of the claims from the investors and creditors was extended by 3 months and this information was widely advertised in leading vernacular newspapers, in all States. Advertisements were published and the period was extended from 19.2.2005 to 20.5.2005. The period fixed in the first advertisement expired on 24.1.2005. Nevertheless, the Committee continued to receive the claims even after the expiry of that period and later the claims were received during the extended period. The Supreme Court in its order dated 05.09.2006 fixed 10.08.2006 as the cut-off date for receiving claims. Since claims from the depositors of GFIL continued, the Supreme Court directed that no deposit accepted by an Agent after 1st January 2001 is to be considered as GFIL had closed business in December 2000 and the Directors of the company were in the Jail in December 2000. The Court also directed that there should be clear proof of WP( C) 1399/2010 Page 3 deposit of money with GFIL or its group. The relevant part of the Supreme Court's order of 5-9-2006 is extracted below:-

14. The applicant in its response and in the submissions urges that a complete picture as to the assets of the GFIL and its group companies has always remained unclear and that in these circumstances, it would be appropriate that an Advisory Board ought to be constituted which consists of one member of SEBI, a member of RBI and a representative of one of the investors. The Board should identify and ascertain the exact number of properties of the company spread throughout the length and breadth of the country and thereafter, every effort should be made to ascertain the actual liabilities of all the investors of GFIL Group of companies. It is suggested that if the Advisory Board fails to take over the assets of GFIL companies spread throughout the country, the Board should hand over the land unit to the willing owners who originally deposited Rs.5,000/- and above and was allotted units of land given in the guarantee-cum-performance deed by the GFIL. It was urged that the investors have waited for more than nine years and do not see any sight to the agony being suffered by them. In respect of SEBI dated 13.12.2013, made pursuant to this Court's directions, in the order of 30.10.2013, it is stated that the body (SEBI) is not legally empowered or competent to comment on the mode of utilisation of properties of GFIL and disbursement of funds to its investors. It is stated that in terms of Regulation 73 of SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, where schemes are to be wound-up by concerned companies or persons even if the winding-up report of the company showing repayment of the amount collected is found doubtful, SEBI insists upon the company certifying the payments to the investors through auditors. This is to ensure transparency and authenticity of actual payments. Without prejudice to its WP( C) 1399/2010 Page 18 basic submission, SEBI, however, submits that the complete list of inventory containing immovable and moveable assets of GFIL was not prepared and finalized or identified which is a prerequisite for determining the mode and manner of disbursement of the dues of the parties and claims, as it would depend on the final amount realized by the Committee and available with it in the common bill for reimbursement of expenses and payment of balance amounts to the investors. The SEBI also cites various orders of the Supreme Court where the GFIL or its representatives undertook to disclose details of its but did not do so accurately.