Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)Section 3 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 11B in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Section 12 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Alchemist Infra Realty Limited And ... vs Sebi on 23 July, 2013
In the matter of Alchemist vs SEBI, the appellant therein was a
public limited company developing high quality infrastructure and real
estate within India as well as abroad. SEBI held that Alchemist was
actually carrying on an unregistered CIS in contravention of provisions of
section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 3 of the CIS
Regulations. Alchemist submitted that its business had nothing to do with
the securities market and was under the supervision of the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs. Therefore, no CIS certification from SEBI was required.
22
SEBI rejected this submission of Alchemist and argued that all the criteria
required for a scheme to be declared as a CIS were being fulfilled by the so-
called real estate business of Alchemist. SAT upheld SEBI's Order stating
that the business of Alchemist was indeed covered by the definition of a
CIS as provided in the SEBI Act.
Pacl Ltd. vs Sebi on 12 August, 2015
31. From an analysis of the facts of both matters viz. Alchemist and
PACL, it is evident that the two are in stark contrast to each other. The
CISs under PACL were declared to be sham transactions and detrimental to
the interest of its investors, and thus, ordered to be wound up and money
23
returned to investors, without directing the procedure provided in
Regulation 73 and Regulation 68 of the CIS Regulations be followed. On
the other hand, the CISs launched under Alchemist did not threaten the
interest of its investors as sham transactions in any manner. In the case of
Alchemist, this Tribunal saw the transactions between Alchemist and its
investors as genuine transfers under a non-registered CIS Scheme. The
matter in Alchemist revolved solely around whether or not the schemes
floated by Alchemist came under the definition of a CIS under Section
11AA of the SEBI Act. At this point, it is noteworthy to highlight an extract
from the case of PACL Ltd vs SEBI.
Pgf Ltd. vs Sebi on 24 February, 2010
Therefore, the argument that in view of the decision of this
Tribunal in case of Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd. (supra) PACL
has a right to seek registration under CIS Regulations cannot
be accepted".