Order in the matter of M/s Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd

of 27

WTM/PS/ 19/CIS-NRO/JULY/2015

BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

CORAM: PRASHANT SARAN, WHOLE TIME MEMBER

ORDER

Under Sections 11(1), 11(4)and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act,

1992read with Regulation 65 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective

Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999, against Kalpbut Real Estate Limited [CIN:

U45400UP2007PLC034180] and its directors viz., Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh [PAN:

AENPS9792L], Mr. Krishan Pal Singh [PAN: AMYPS0600G], Ms. Guddi Devi [PAN:

AJXPD0444R], Mr. Rajendra Singh Thakur [PAN: ABUPT7761N], Mr. Parvesh Kumar

Singh [PAN: DEWPS4079J], Mr. Natthu Singh [PAN: DKBPS2620L], Mr. Raksha Pal

Singh [PAN: BDSPS9886A], Mr. Devendra Pal Singh [PAN: BJVPS0029N], Ms.

Rajeshwari Sengar [PAN : AVZPS2724H] and Mr. Pooran Prakash [PAN : ALLPP2252K]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2015 and May 08, 2015

Appearances:

For Noticees: Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Advocate.

Mr. Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Chartered Accountant.

For SEBI: Mr. Mohd. Atif Alvi, Deputy General Manager.

Mr. N. Murugan, Assistant General Manager.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Assistant General Manager.

Ms. Treasa Kuriala, Assistant General Manager.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1 Kalpbut Real Estate Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Kalpbut" or "company") is a

company incorporated on November 02, 2007 having its Registered Office at Shop

No.- 5, Hotel Athitya Palace Complex, 2013, Junction Road, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh

with CIN: U45400UP2007PLC034180.

1.2 Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI") had

of 27

received a complaint vide e-mail dated November 26, 2013 alleging that several

companies including Kalpbut have launched various collective investment schemes

without obtaining certificate of registration from SEBI or Reserve Bank of India.

1.3 On enquiry, SEBI, prima facie found that Kalpbut is engaged in fund mobilizing

activities from the public, which is in the nature of a Collective Investment Scheme

without obtaining a certificate of registration from SEBI. Therefore, SEBI, vide an

interim ex-parte Order dated December 10, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘interim

order’) passed the directions against Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and its directors

namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Mr. Krishan Pal Singh, Ms. Guddi Devi, Mr.

Rajendra Singh Thakur, Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Natthu Pal Singh, Mr.

Raksha Pal Singh, Mr. Devendra Pal Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran

Prakash (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘noticees’).

2.1 Prima facie findings/Allegations: The noticees were mobilising funds under the garb

of real estate from the public through Collective Investment Schemes offering Single

Installment Plan and Multiple Installment Scheme. The prospective buyers/investors

who were interested in the aforesaid 'schemes' were made to execute a 'Plot buyer

agreement' with the company without any identification of the plot or land for which

they made the investment. After execution of the same, Kalpbut issued a

'Registration Letter' in favour of the buyer/investor without identifying the land or

plot.

2.2 The Company agreed to arrange for the allotment and registration of plot in the name

of the investor, within a reasonable period, not exceeding 180 days in the case of

Single Installment Plan and in cases of Multiple Installment Scheme, the allotment

would be done within a reasonable period, generally not exceeding 365 days after

receipt of 50% of the ‘consideration’. However, no sale deeds had so far been

executed. The unidentified plot would remain in the possession of Kalpbut till the

expiry of the 'Plot buyer agreement'.

2.3 Kalpbut agreed to develop and maintain the unidentified plots during the currency of

‘Plot Buyers Agreement', in consultation with agro consultants and experts taking into

consideration factors such as soil, climate etc. Kalpbut would finally decide all

of 27

matters relating and incidental to development of the plot including survey,

demarcation, clearing, cultivation, planning to develop crops, trees, plants, saplings ,

use of fertilizer and pesticides irrigation harvesting, etc..

2.4 The property forming part of the scheme would be managed solely by Kalpbut on

behalf of the buyer/investors further indicating uncertainty regarding plot of land that

will be allotted to the investor upon maturity of the agreement term.

2.5 The schemes also provided for return to the investors. The 'Registration letter' issued

to an investor by Kalpbut under its 'Multiple Installment Scheme' indicated an

'Assured Realizable cost' at the end of the term. ', For instance, an investor making an

investment in 'Multiple Installment Scheme for a period of 5 years had to pay Rs.

1,150/- as half yearly installment, for a plot size of 60 sq. yards, where the "plot/land

consideration" was mentioned as Rs 12,000/-. The investor was entitled to an

'Assured Realizable cost' of Rs 18,000/- i.e. he/she was entitled to an amount of Rs

6,000/- as return after the term period of 5 years. Further, in case Kalpbut committed

breach of the agreement by not allotting land in favour of the investor, the "buyer”

was entitled to terminate the Plot buyer agreement, and in such event the investor was

entitled to refund of the investment along with simple interest @ 15% per annum

from the date of contract. Thereby, the scheme also provided for the return to the

investors.

2.6 In view of the above attributes of the scheme, it was alleged that the contributions

were collected from the investors under the Schemes launched by Kalpbut and the

same is pooled and utilized for development of plots. The investments were made by

the investors with a view to receive returns from the schemes. The property,

contribution or investment forming part of the scheme/Plans were managed by

Kalpbut on behalf of investors and the investors did not have any day-to-day control

over the management of the schemes/Plans. In order to satisfy the requirements of

section 11AA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for collective

investment schemes, the noticees were required to get a certificate of registration

from SEBI under Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 3 of the SEBI

of 27

(Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

CIS Regulations’). However no registration was sought by the noticees from SEBI.

2.7 The mobilization of funds from the public, was also prima facie found to be a

fraudulent practice in terms of Regulation 4(2)(t) of the SEBI (Prohibition of

Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities Market) Regulations,

2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulations’). The directors of Kalpbut were

alleged to be responsible for the illegalities.

2.8 In view of the prima facie findings on the violations, vide the said interim order dated

December 10, 2014,the noticees were directed:-

not to collect any fresh money from investors under its existing schemes;

not to launch any new schemes or plans or float any new companies to raise

fresh moneys;

to immediately submit the full inventory of the assets including land obtained

through money raised by Kalpbut;

not to dispose of or alienate any of the properties/assets obtained directly or

indirectly through money raised by Kalpbut;

not to divert any funds raised from public at large which are kept in bank

account(s) and/or in the custody of Kalpbut.”

3.1 The noticees, in the said interim order, were advised to file their replies within a

period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the interim order and also to indicate

whether they wish to avail an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter.

4.1 Service of the interim order: The copy of the interim order was sent to the noticees

vide letter dated December 19, 2014. Kalpbut vide its letter dated January 07, 2015,

on its behalf and on behalf of the directors sought an extension of time for filing of

objections and replies. A request for granting an opportunity of personal hearing was

also made vide the said letter. The noticees vide letter dated January 27, 2015,

submitted the common reply to the interim order. The Company vide its another

letter dated February 27, 2015, made additional submissions and requested that the

directions issued against it be kept in abeyance till final conclusion of the

proceedings.

of 27

5.1 Personal hearing: Thereafter, SEBI intimated vide letter dated March 17, 2015 that

opportunity of hearing to all the noticees would be scheduled on April 20, 2015.

Since the notices of hearing addressed to Mr. Krishan Pal Singh, Mr. Raksha Pal

Singh returned undelivered, SEBI vide letter dated April 08, 2015 intimated Kalpbut

to deliver the notices of hearing to them. In the personal hearing held on April 20,

2015, Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Kumar Agarwal,

Chartered Accountant appeared as authorised representatives of the noticees. During

the course of hearing, SEBI asked the representatives to give more details regarding

the operations of the noticees and a further opportunity of hearing was scheduled for

May 08, 2015. Mr. KRCV Seshachalam, the Advocate for the noticees appeared on

May 08, 2015 and made additional submissions. On conclusion of the personal

hearing, the authorised representative of the noticees requested that the directions

issued against it, be kept in abeyance till the final conclusion of the proceedings.

6.1 The Reply of the noticees: The case of the noticees as submitted in their replies

including the replies of the company vide its letters dated July 05, 2014, July 23,

2014 and July 24, 2014 and the personal hearing in a nutshell is as follows:

6.2 The company is not running any CIS scheme. The company is running genuine real

estate business. The Company owns the land, it develops and sells them on

installment basis to its customers. Its business includes buying and selling of land;

creating housing plots and selling them to the retail buyers; buying agricultural land

and selling the housing plots after converting it to non agricultural land; buying land

and developing the residential complexes and selling the individual residential units

to retail buyers; undertakes development of the plots of land so sold, if desired by the

buyers. Buying and selling of land squarely falls under the jurisdiction of State. The

company has complied with all the relevant laws with regard to a real estate business

and submitting all necessary information to the state government.

6.3 The company first acquires the land and then plots are created as per the

measurement to enable small/ middle income group buyers to acquire the same. The

payments are made by the buyers for buying an existing piece of land already owned

by the company. The payments received from the buyers were not used for

of 27

acquiring the land, since the company owns land already. Once the interested buyer

pays the money, the company immediately allots the property as per availability and

preference and necessary registration letter is also given with necessary details like

plot number, khasra number etc. to identify the property.

6.4 The company has on-going "projects"in Hadora, Baheta, Islam Nager,Bhamori,

Sisirka, in the district of Badaun, Aonala in the district of Bareilly,Lehravan in the

district of Moradabad. As far as Baduan and Sisarka are concerned, they are under

the process of development and once the land is leveled the demarcation work

would start as per lay out plan. The selling of housing plots with one time payment

do not fit into the definition of CIS.

6.5 All the agreements of the ongoing "projects" are under Single Investment Schemes

and the sale deeds will be executed only at the time of possession. It had not made

any agreement with any of its customers on multiple investment schemes. No

consideration is received from any investor. What is received is only the advance

consideration in installments from the buyers for the land. The company has

received part consideration from 2,388 investors under various "projects" to the tune

of �15,64,86,244 as on 31/03/2013.

6.6 The development activities of the company includes cultivation, plantation,

cropping, saplings, fertilizers and other maintenance task and marketing of produce

thereof during the tenure of its engagement. The development of the plot is at the

option of the buyer. The consideration for the same would be completely different

and in addition to what was agreed to be paid for the cost of land. The property is

not managed by the company, the property is transferred to the purchasers and the

purchaser has various commercially viable options. The purchaser of the land has

full control over the property subject to the fulfillment of payment of full

consideration. Even if the property is managed by the company, it is not from the

funds raised from the buyers.

6.7 Non execution of the sale deed is of no relevance in a real estate transaction of this

nature. The sale will be completed after completion of the formalities with various

authorities and within the time as mutually agreed upon.

of 27

6.8 The company in the plot buyer agreement has inserted a default clause which is

customary in any real estate agreement. Such clauses are incorporated in the

agreement, as the individuals will have the advantage of monetised and liquidated

money return instead of long process of filing suit for specific performance. There

was no creation of profits or returns by the Company. What was paid to the

purchaser in case of frustration of agreement is the penal interest as agreed.

6.9 The corpus of the installment plans does not constitute �100 crore. As on date, there

is no complaint of delay or default from any buyer.

6.10 SEBI while passing the interim order had relied upon an investor complaint and

information from the RoC, however, the same were not provided to it. On receiving

the copy of the complaint subsequently from SEBI, it is found that the Company

does not have any buyer in the name of the complainant and the purported

application of the said complainant was not issued by it. The claim of the

complainant is incorrect and in all the cases there is an identified and identifiable

plot of land.

6.11 If SEBI is still of the opinion that any activity of the Company constitutes CIS, the

Company will ensure that all the funds received from the purchaser are repaid and

plans will be wound up, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

6.12 The SEBI communications before the interim order had not contained any mention

of any preliminary regulatory enquiry. In the absence of the same the Company

could not relate to the context of seeking such information. The company was under

bonafide belief that SEBI was satisfied with its reply and no further action was

required from their side. However, SEBI passed the interim order without giving

any opportunity to explain the question of law on which the entire order was based.

6.13 The Company has other business of constructing residential buildings and selling

flats in normal commercial terms and the company believes that the directions as

contained in the interim order are not applicable to the said activities and these can

be continued in the normal course of business.

7.1 I have considered the allegations, replies and materials on record. On perusal of the

of 27

same, the following issues arise for consideration. Each question is dealt with

separately under different headings.

1. Whether the noticees have launched and are running the

arrangement/scheme as alleged?

2. Whether the major attributes of the arrangement fall within the definition of

collective investment schemes as defined in section 11AA of SEBI Act?

3. If so, whether the noticees have violated Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and

Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations’ and Regulation 4(2)(t) of the SEBI

(Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities

Market) Regulations, 2003.

9.1 Whether the noticees have launched and are running the arrangement/scheme as

alleged: On perusal of copies of plot buyer agreement, registration letter and other

materials on record, I find that:-

a) The company had received money from the public through Single Installment

scheme and Multiple Installment Scheme. Admittedly, the company collected

Rs. 15,64,86,244/-from as many as 2338 investors under its various schemes. The

prospective buyers/investors who were interested in the aforesaid 'Schemes' were

made to execute a 'Plot Buyer(s)'s Agreement' with the company without any

identification of the plot or land. After execution of the same, the company issued

a 'Registration Letter' in favour of the buyer/investor without identifying the land

or plot.

b) The company agreed to arrange for the allotment and registration of plot in the

name of the investor, within a reasonable period, not exceeding 180 days in case

of Single Installment Plan and in cases of Multiple Installment Scheme, the

allotment would be done within a reasonable period, generally not exceeding 365

days after receipt of 50% of the consideration. The unidentified plot would

remain in the possession of the company till the expiry of the 'Plot Buyer(s)'s

Agreement'.

c) The company in its Plot Buyer Agreement undertook to develop and maintain the

of 27

unidentified plots during the currency of Plot Buyer Agreement, in consultation

with agro consultants and experts taking into consideration factors such as soil,

climate etc. The company stated that it would finally decide all matters relating

and incidental to development of the plot including survey, demarcation, clearing,

cultivation, planning to develop crops, trees, plants, saplings, use of fertilizer and

pesticides, irrigation and harvesting. The property forming part of the scheme

was being managed solely by the Company on behalf of the customers/investors.

The investors had no day today control over the activities of development of the

plot.

d) In case the company committed breach of the promise in the agreement/scheme

by not allotting land in favour of the investor, the “buyer” would be entitled to

terminate the Agreement/scheme, and in such event the investor is entitled to the

refund of the investment along with simple interest @ 15% per annum from the

date of contract. This clause is present in all the plot buyers agreement submitted

by the Company. The fact that the investor is entitled to receive the return of the

investment along with simple of interest of 15% shows that the scheme provides

for monetary returns.

9.2 At this juncture, the argument of the noticee in its reply dated Jan 27, 2015 that SEBI

while passing the interim order had relied upon an investor complaint and information

from the RoC, without providing the copy of the same to the noticees, is considered.

During the personal hearing, it was further submitted that SEBI has relied upon the

said false complaint for arriving at the conclusions in interim order.

9.3 I find that the copy of the complaint from one Mr. Mangal Sen along with its

annexures, was forwarded to the company vide letter dated Feb 11, 2015. On receipt

of the same, the company had denied vide its letter dated Feb 27, 2015, the fact of his

being a customer. The Company also submitted that Mr. Mangal Sen had submitted

an affidavit stating that he had not paid any money to the company and the

application form might be a forged one. However, no copy of the affidavit was

provided to SEBI at any point of time. I find that copies of the plot buyer agreements

submitted by the Company itself contains the clause providing for returns. Therefore,

of 27

it cannot be said that SEBI is relying on the documents of Mangal Sen for

establishing the allegations against the noticees.

9.4 In view of the above observations, I find that the noticees have launched and are

carrying on the arrangement/scheme as alleged.

10.1 Whether the major attributes of the arrangement fall within the definition of

collective investment schemes as defined in section 11AA of SEBI Act?

10.2 Before proceeding to determine whether the four conditions mentioned in section

11AA(2) are satisfied, I consider it apt to deal with the contention of the noticees

that it is running a genuine real estate business. The company submitted that it had

on going "projects" in Hadora, Baheta, Islam Nager, Bhamori, Sisarka, in the district

of Badaun, in Aonla in the district of Bareilly, in Lehravan in the district of

Moradabad, in Padrilalpur, Ghatampur, in the district of Kanpur. As far as "projects"

in Baduan and Sisarka are concerned, they are under the process of development and

once the land got leveled the demarcation work would start as per lay out plan(Lay-

out). In order to establish the case of the noticees that it agreed to sell identified plots

to the prospective buyers in its various “projects", the noticees produced copies of

registration letters, plot buyer agreement, Lay-out plans and application forms in

respect of its ongoing "projects".

10.3 The company vide letter dated May 26, 2014, forwarded to SEBI a copy of the

registration letter and plot buyers agreement, in respect of Sisarka 'Project', issued to

one Mr. Vijay Pratap (Registration serial Number: 000623 dated 9/5/2012)and to

another person, Mr. Hari Shankar (Registration No 000650 dated 16/05/2012). Both

of them had invested Rs 50,000/- each in the company's 'Single Installment Plan' for

50 sq.yards plot at Sisarka, Distt. Badaun in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the company

vide letter dated June 6, 2014 referring to the copy of registration letter submitted

vide letter dated May 26, 2014 (received by SEBI on May 30, 2014), contended that

once the interested person paid the money, the company immediately allotted the

property as per availability and preference and registration letter was given with

necessary details like plot number, khasra number etc. to identify the property.

of 27

10.4 I have perused the “Lay-out” given by the noticees in respect of the Sisarka 'project'

which clearly contains nine different blocks viz., 'A', to "I". On perusal of the copy

of the registration letter enclosed by the company in its letter dated May 26, 2014, I

find that the same carried the details for the commencement of the scheme, the name

of the scheme and the term of the scheme, consideration paid and the amount of

installment received. But at the same time, there was no column, in the copy of the

registration letter for details of plot, khasra number, etc. Therefore, the question of

mentioning of the same does not arise at all in the case. Curiously, the company has

falsely stated in its letter dated June 6, 2014 and misled SEBI that the registration

letter carried details such as plot number, Khasra Number in order to identify the

property. There is no mention of any identifiable plot number associated with any

specific Blocks('A', to "I") in either of the application forms signed by these two

investors. In the case of Mr. Harishankar, simply "04" is shown as plot number

both in the application form and in the Plot buyer agreement. Similar is the case with

Mr. Vijay Pratap. However, no mention as to whether the same belongs to any of the

Blocks 'A' to "I, is made therein. Similarly, vide letter dated July 23, 2014, ten

copies of registration letters issued to various investors (Khalid Zamankhan,

BhooDevi, Seema Devi, Nekpal Singh, Suman, Pramod Kumar, Dipanshi, Sonkali,

Shaheeda, Hardai) were given in respect of Sisarka 'project'. In none of the copies of

these registration letters too, there is any mention of the Block numbers. It does not

stand to reason how the plots agreed to be sold, can be identified just by a numerical

number of plot without mentioning the Blocks to which it belongs.

10.5 Even during the personal hearing, the noticees maintained the same stand that it was

running a real estate business. A copy of the “Lay-out” map claimed to be in respect

of Hathora, Badaun, U.P was submitted by the authorised representative to show that

only Plots mentioned in the “Lay –out” plan are being agreed to be sold. The “Lay-

out” carries the diagrammatic representation of different plot sizes in various blocks

such as 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'.

10.6 In order to verify the claim of the noticees, the authorised representatives were

directed during the first personal hearing, to submit the complete list of investors

of 27

containing the name, address, details of the plot allotted, details of the plot sold, etc.

within two days from the date of hearing. The representatives were also directed to

submit the complete case file/ set of documents starting from the respective

application forms, respective agreements, respective details of payment made/

installment receipts, respective allotment letters, respective sale deeds, respective

possession letters, etc. of all its customers who have been allotted/ sold , the plot/ in

unit nos. B-2 to B-121 at Hathora, Badaun, U.P. The representatives were also asked

to demarcate and identify the plot on the 'lay-out map' for all such customers. For

submitting these details, the noticees were granted time till May 08, 2015. The

noticees were also granted another opportunity of personal hearing on May 08, 2015

as stated earlier.

10.7 The noticees vide letter dated May 01, 2015 submitted the complete list of investors

containing name, address, details of plot allotted and the project in which the plot was

allotted. The Company also submitted set of documents (application forms, plot

buyers agreement and registration letters) for plot no.B-2 to B-121 at Hathora,

Badaun, UP. However, I note that the Company has not demarcated and identified the

plot on the 'lay-out map' for all its customers for plot/ unit nos. B-2 to B-121 at

Hathora, Badaun, U.P.

10.8 I have perused the copies of the registration letter and the plot buyers agreement

submitted pursuant to the personal hearing in respect of 'B' blocks. The said copies

were submitted in support of their case that the identified plot is agreed to be sold.

The genuineness of the said documents is questionable for the following reasons. The

said documents have been signed by Mr. P.K Singh, one of the noticees. On perusal

of the signature in vakalath filed on behalf of Mr. P.K Singh, the said signature is

neither matching with the signature observed in copy of the registration letter, nor

signature observed in the copy of the plot buyer agreement submitted by the

company. Further, upon a comparison of registration letters submitted vide letter

dated May 26, 2015 and registration letters submitted pursuant to personal hearing, I

find that the right hand side columns in the registration letters submitted vide letter

dated May 26, 2014 are vacant without details of the Block number or Plot number

of 27

and bottom portion has a specific Receipt cum Acceptance letter. However, in the

registration letter submitted pursuant to the personal hearing, I find that vacant

columns on the right hand side have been utilized to incorporate the Block number

along with the plot number and the bottom portion of "Receipt cum Acceptance

letter" is missing.

10.9 Further, I find from the copy of the plot buyers agreement of Latoori dated March 25,

2010, that the company has agreed with the investor that the same will expire on

May 20, 2016. However in the copy of the plot buyer agreement of the same person

submitted subsequent to the personal hearing, the date is altered as May 20, 2017.

10.10 In view of these discrepancies, the documents submitted pursuant to the personal

hearing do not seem to be genuine and no reliance can be placed on them.

10.11 Moreover, the said plot buyers' agreement if considered as an agreement to sell,

sought by the noticees, cannot be considered as a piece of admissible evidence, in

view of U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, w.e.f. January 1,

1977, which mandates even an agreement to sell has to be registered in state of

Uttar Pradesh and judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Allahabad in Vijay Kumar

Sharma v Devesh Behari Saxena (AIR 2008 ALL 66), which lays down that the

unregistered agreement to sell cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. Therefore,

even assuming that identified plot is agreed to be sold through plot buyer agreement

the same cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence for agreement to sell.

Therefore those documents do not exist in the eye of law for the purpose of proving

the "agreement to sell". Rather, these demonstrate the features of the collective

investment scheme and can be considered as one of the scheme documents.

10.12 Further, even though Company started its activities as early in the year 2009, the

company neither produced any registered sale deed as on this date, nor any legally

valid documents to show that it was in the business of selling lands or plots to the

‘buyers’. The noticees argued vide letter dated Jan 1, 2015 that non execution of

sale deed is of no relevance in the real estate. I find that as per clause 2A the scheme

document of 'Plot Buyer(s) Agreement', the title of the plot had to be transferred to

the investor by executing sale deed within a reasonable period after issuance of the

of 27

allotment letter. The company vide letter dated 24/07/2014 submitted that sale deeds

will be executed only at the time of possession. However, not even a single sale deed

has so far been produced before SEBI. It is difficult to accept a company as a real

estate company which in six years of its existence has not had a single registered sale

deed.

10.13 Therefore, the argument of the company that it is running a genuine real estate

business is liable to be rejected. I find that there is no tenable evidence to conclude

that the company is selling identified plots in the various above mentioned "projects"

or that sale consideration is received for the plots claimed to be sold by the company

in respect of those "projects".

10.14 I proceed to consider now whether the four conditions mentioned in section 11AA(2)

of SEBI Act are satisfied in the instant arrangement. Section 11AA of SEBI Act reads

as follows:

"(1) Any scheme or arrangement which satisfies the conditions referred to in

subsection (2) or [sub-section (2A)] shall be a collective investment scheme.

[Provided that any pooling of funds under any scheme or arrangement, which

is not registered with the Board or is not covered under the exemptions from

CIS sub-section (3), involving a corpus amount of one hundred Crore rupees

or more shall be deemed to be a collective investment scheme.]

(2) Any scheme or arrangement made or offered by any [person] 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.

[(2A)] Any scheme or arrangement made or offered by any person satisfying

the conditions as may be specified in accordance with the regulations made

under this Act.]

of 27

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) [or sub-section

(2A)], any scheme or Arrangement:

i. made or offered by a co-operative society

ii. under which deposits are accepted by non-banking financial companies

iii. being a contract of insurance

iv. providing for any scheme, Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme framed

under the Employees Provident Fund

v. under which deposits are accepted under section 58A of the Companies Act,

1956

vi. under which deposits are accepted by a company declared as a Nidhi or a

mutual benefit society

vii. falling within the meaning of Chit business as defined in clause (d) of

section 2 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982(40 of 1982);

viii. under which contributions made are in the nature of subscription to a

mutual fund;

[ix. such other scheme or arrangement which the Central Government may, in

consultation with the Board, notify,]

shall not be a collective investment scheme."

10.15 Perusal of the above section shows that the any arrangement or scheme to be

considered as collective investment scheme has to satisfy the four conditions

mentioned in section 11AA(2) of SEBI Act and the same should not fall within any of

the exceptions mentioned in section 11AA(3) of SEBI Act.

10.3.1 Regarding the first requirement of pooling of the contributions and utilization of the

same for the scheme, noticees denied that any contribution was received from the

investors. The company vide letter dated July 23, 2014, denied making any agreement

with any of its customers on multiple investment schemes. However, it argued vide

letter dated January 27, 2015 that it received advance consideration in installments

for selling the land already owned by it. In order to support their case that there is no

pooling of money received from the investors, the company stated that it acquired the

land first and then the plots are created as per the measurement to enable small/

middle income group buyers to acquire the same(which was submitted vide its reply

dated Jan 27, 2015).The Company submitted that payments made by the buyers were

of 27

for buying an existing piece of land and that the payments from the buyers were not

used for acquiring the land since the company had its own land.

10.3.2 In a nutshell, the argument of the company is that there is no pooling of contributions,

since the legal nature of money received is only sale consideration from the

purchasers, the same does not fall within the meaning of “contributions” of the

investors, within the meaning of section 11AA(2) of SEBI Act. Further the money

collected is not pooled and utilised to purchase any property since the company

already owns land.

10.3.3 However, the argument of the company that it was only receiving sale consideration

cannot be accepted, as there was no proof to show that the company was selling

identified plots. Although the company argued that it had not pooled and utilised the

collected money because it owned land, I note that the prohibition to run the CIS

schemes as per section 12(1B) of SEBI Act, would also step in even at the time of

launching and sponsoring the scheme, the stage at which there is only a proposal to

utilize the money for the schemes. I note that the company agreed through its various

scheme documents to utilize the money contributed by the investors for the

development of the land. Therefore, I find that money was collected by the company

with a promise to utilize the same for the development of the unidentified plots.

10.3.4 I further find that the denial of company at one place that it did not have any multiple

installment plan, does not help the company in any manner. It is immaterial whether

the contribution by the investors are by way of lump sum payment or by way of

installments. In fact, I find from the plot buyer agreement, that the company had

"single installment scheme" and multiple installment scheme. The plot buyer

agreements at clause 14 dealing with the eventuality of breach by the 'buyers'

specifically deals with the "buyers" of "multiple installment plans". Therefore, the

company did run both single and multiple installment schemes.

10.4.1 As regards, the second requirement, that contributions/payments were made by the

investors with a view to receive profits, income, produce or movable or immovable

property from such scheme, I have noted earlier, that the scheme document provides

for development of the plots. The Scheme document plot buyer agreement had the

of 27

clause for development and the company made the representation to the buyer that

the development was at the option of the investors. However the investor clearly

expressed his intention through his representation in the plot buyer agreement by

opting for the development of the plot by the company which is further shown by

clause 4 of the said Agreement. As per clause 8 of the plot buyer agreement, the

company agreed to notify the investor as soon as the development activities are over,

30 days before the expiry of the agreement. It shows that the possession of the

property remained with the Company for development/ cultivation during the tenure

of agreement (generally 3 to 7 years). For example, Plot buyer agreement in respect

of Mr. Viay Pratap under examination, provided for the expiry period ending on

April 15, 2016.Thereafter, the company agreed to hand over the developed plots to

the investors. The company further extended its marketing services for selling the

developed plots(clause 16 of the Plot Buyer Agreement).

10.4.2 The company had denied receiving any maintenance charge from the investors.

However, from the "general terms and conditions" (clause 6) appended to the Plot

buyers agreement of Hari Shankar (as in the case of other investors) as supplied by

the company, I find that the cost of the plot can include development charges.

Therefore, even if no amount was separately charged as maintenance/development

cost by the company, the same was included in the cost of the land as per the terms

and conditions. Even if the company was not separately charging anything for the

development of plot, the same did not alter the basic arrangement with the investors

that the plots are agreed to be developed. If the plots were not meant to be

developed, it does not stand to reason why should there be an agreement clause to

that effect and there is no reason why the land is being held by the Company for such

a long duration. The company vide its reply dated Jan 27, 2015 has rather admitted

the development activities. According to the Company, the development activities on

the plot included cultivation, plantation, cropping, saplings, fertilizers and other

maintenance task and marketing of produce thereof during the tenure of its

engagement. Even if no such development charges were received under the heading

of ‘development charges’, the promise of developmental activity clearly establishes

of 27

that the contribution made by the investor are usable for developmental activities.

The legal position that the section 12(1B) of SEBI Act mandates the registration of

the CIS scheme at the stage of sponsoring to launch the scheme itself, shows that an

arrangement to develop the unidentified plot by pooling of money from investors

will itself be sufficient without actual development being proved by SEBI, provided

other conditions prescribed in section 11AA(2) of SEBI Act are satisfied. Thus, I find

that in the instant scheme, contributions/payments were made by the investors with a

view to receive immovable property(developed plots)from such scheme.

10.4.3 The company argued vide reply dated Jan 27, 2015 that the clause 13 A of the Plot

buyer agreement which provided for refund of investment along with simple interest

at 15% p.a from the date of contract in case company breaches the agreement, is only

liquidated money which the investor will get instead of filing a lengthy process of suit

for specific performance. I find that this clause is present in all the plot buyers

agreement submitted by the Company. The fact that the investor is entitled to receive

the return of the investment along with simple of interest of 15% shows that the

scheme provides for monetary returns.

10.4.4 On perusal of the interim order I find that the allegation cum finding against the

company that it was running CIS was not only based on the fact that the company

was providing returns. It was also on the basis that the company was agreeing to

provide developed plots. It may be seen as per section 11AA(2)(ii) in order to

constitute a CIS scheme, the contributions to such scheme by the investors have to

be made with a view to receive profits, income, produce or movable or immovable

property from such scheme. In the instant case, there is also an allegation that the

company agreed to provide immovable property in the form of developed plots. In

view of the foregoing discussion, I find that in the instant scheme,

contributions/payments were made by the investors also with a view to receive

returns from such scheme. Therefore, the second requirement under section 11AA(2)

of SEBI Act is also satisfied in the instant case.

10.5.1 As regards the third requirement that the property, contribution or investment forming

part of the scheme, whether identifiable or not, is managed on behalf of the investors,

of 27

and the fourth requirement that the investors do not have the day to day control over

the management and operation of the scheme., the noticees vide reply dated Jan 27,

2015 argued that the entire maintenance of plot, was at the option of the buyer and the

consideration for the same would be completely different and in addition to what was

agreed to be paid. Even if the property was managed by the company, it was not

from the funds raised from the investors.

10.5.2 As discussed earlier, the development of the plot is not at the option of the investor as

claimed by the company. In the Plot buyer agreement, it is seen that the company

undertook development for all investors. The scheme rather provideed for mandatory

development by the company as shown by clause 4 of the said Agreement. The same

reads as follows:-

"DEVELOPMENT : The Company shall in conformity and in accordance with the

opted scheme by the buyer(s) develop and maintain the Buyer(s) plot from the

date of signing of this agreement in consultation with agro consultants and

experts taking into consideration such factors such as soil , climate etc. All

matters pertaining to development including survey, demarcation, clearing ,

cultivation , planning to development corps trees plants saplings etc. use of

fertilizer and pesticides irrigation harvesting and all other activities allied or

incidental thereof shall be finally decided by the company...."

10.5.3 The perusal of the above clause clearly shows that the management of the

development activities were to be done by the company on behalf of the investors.

The manner of the development activities to be done by the company also was

"finally" decided by the company. Hence I find that the instant arrangement/scheme

satisfies the third and fourth conditions for CIS schemes.

10.5.4 In view of the satisfaction of the all the four conditions, I find that the instant

arrangement/schemes falls within the definition of collective investment schemes. As

all the four conditions specified under section 11AA(2) of the SEBI Act are satisfied

in this case, the schemes/ plans promoted, launched, carried on and operated by the

noticees are in the nature of CIS in terms of section 11AA(1). In this regard, it would

be relevant to place reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, made

of 27

in the matter of PGF Limited &Ors. Vs. Union of India &Anrs. (Civil Appeal No.

6572 of 2004):

"Therefore, the paramount object of the Parliament in enacting the SEBI Act itself

and in particular the addition of Section 11AA was with a view to protect the

gullible investors most of whom are poor and uneducated or retired personnel or

those who belong to middle income group and who seek to invest their hard

earned retirement benefits or savings in such schemes with a view to earn some

sustained benefits or with the fond hope that such investment will get appreciated

in course of time. Certain other Section of the people who are worstly affected are

those who belong to the middle income group who again make such investments

in order to earn some extra financial benefits and thereby improve their standard

of living and on very many occasions to cater to the need of the educational

career of their children.

38. Since it was noticed in the early 90s that there was mushroom growth of

attractive schemes or arrangements, which persuaded the above vulnerable group

getting attracted towards such schemes and arrangements, which weakness was

encashed by the promoters of such schemes and arrangements who lure them to

part with their savings by falling as a prey to the sweet coated words of such

frauds, the Parliament thought it fit to introduce Section 11AA in the Act in order

to ensure that any such scheme put to public notice is not intended to defraud

such gullible investors and also to monitor the operation of such schemes and

arrangements based on the regulations framed under Section 11AA of the Act. ...

... ...

40. It will have to be stated with particular reference to the activity of the PGF

Limited, namely, sale and development of agricultural land as a collective

investment scheme, the implication of Section 11AA was not intended to affect the

development of agricultural land or any other operation connected therewith or

put any spokes in such sale-cum-development of such agricultural land. It has to

be borne in mind that by seeking to cover any scheme or arrangement by way of

collective investment scheme either in the field of agricultural or any other

of 27

commercial activity, the purport is only to ensure that the scheme providing for

investment in the form of rupee, anna or paise gets registered with the authority

concerned and the provision would further seek to regulate such schemes in order

to ensure that any such investment based on any promise under the scheme or

arrangement is truly operated upon in a lawful manner and that by operating

such scheme or arrangement the person who makes the investment is able to

really reap the benefit and that he is not defrauded ... ... It is, therefore, apparent

that all other schemes/arrangements operated by all others, namely, other than

those who are governed by sub-section 3 of Section 11AA are to be controlled in

order to ensure proper working of the scheme primarily in the interest of the

investors.

... ...

42. Therefore, in reality what sub-section (2) of Section 11AA intends to achieve

is only to safeguard the interest of the investors whenever any scheme or

arrangement is announced by such promoters by making a thorough study of such

schemes and arrangements before registering such schemes with the SEBI and

also later on monitor such schemes and arrangements in order to ensure proper

statutory control over such promoters and whatever investment made by any

individual is provided necessary protection for their investments in the event of

such schemes or arrangements either being successfully operated upon or by any

misfortune happen to be abandoned, where again there would be sufficient

safeguards made for an assured refund of investments made, if not in full, at least

a part of it.

... ... In the light of our above conclusions on this ground it will have to be held

that Section 11AA is a valid provision, not suffering from any infirmity, as it does

not intrude into the specific activities of sale of agricultural land and its

development.

... ...

It is needless to state that as per the agreement between the customer and the

PGF Limited, it is the responsibility of the PGF Limited to carry out the

developmental activity in the land and thereby the PGF Limited undertook to

of 27

manage the scheme/arrangement on behalf of the customers. Having regard to the

location of the lands sold in units to the customers, which are located in different

states while the customers are stated to be from different parts of the country it is

well-neigh possible for the customers to have day to day control over the

management and operation of the scheme/arrangement. In these circumstances,

the conclusion of the Division Bench in holding that the nature of activity of the

PGF Limited under the guise of sale and development of agricultural land did fall

under the definition of collective investment scheme under Section 2(ba) read

along with Section 11AA of the SEBI Act was perfectly justified and hence, we do

not find any flaw in the said conclusion.

... ....

53. We, therefore, hold that Section 11AA of the SEBI Act is constitutionally valid.

We also hold that the activity of the PGF Limited, namely, the sale and

development of agricultural land squarely falls within the definition of collective

investment scheme under Section 2(ba) read along with Section 11AA (ii) of the

SEBI Act and consequently the order of the second respondent dated 06.12.2002

is perfectly justified and there is no scope to interfere with the same. In the light

of our above conclusions, the PGF Limited has to comply with the directions

contained in last paragraph of the order of the second respondent dated

06.12.2002 ... ..."

11.1 If so, whether the noticees have violated Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and

Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations’ and Regulation 4(2)(t) of the SEBI

(Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities Market)

Regulations, 2003:

11.2 Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act mandates that no person, shall sponsor or cause to be

sponsored or carry on or caused to be carried on any CIS, unless it obtains a certificate

of registration from SEBI in accordance with the CIS Regulations. The prohibition is

on every person. Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations provides that no person other

than a Collective Investment Management Company which has obtained a certificate

under the said regulations shall carry on or sponsor or launch a 'CIS'. A person can

of 27

launch or sponsor or cause to sponsor a CIS only if it is registered with SEBI as a

Collective Investment Management Company. Therefore, the launching/ floating/

sponsoring/ 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.

11.3 I find that the noticees have launched and are carrying on collective investment

schemes, without obtaining certificate of registration from SEBI. Therefore, the

noticees have contravened the provisions of Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and

Regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations.

11.4 In respect of the allegation of violation of reg. 4(2)(t) of reg. 4(2) (t) of SEBI

(Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Markets)

Regulations, 2003 (FUTP Regulations, 2003), it may be noted the FUTP Regulations

was amended with effect from Sept 06, 2013 and clause (t) to reg. 4(2) was inserted

which reads as follows:-

4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices

(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade

practice if it involves fraud and may include all or any of the following, namely

(a)…

"(t) illegal mobilization of funds by sponsoring or causing to be sponsored or

carrying on or causing to be carried on any collective investment scheme by any

person."

11.5 Subsequent, to introduction of reg. 4(2) (t) of FUTP Regulations, 2003., the illegal

mobilisation of funds by means of collective investment schemes are deemed to be

fraudulent. The company carrying on unregistered collective investment schemes and

all those persons who are directors as on the date of introduction of reg. 4(2) (t) of

FUTP Regulations, 2003 will be liable for action, for violation of reg. 4(2) (t) of FUTP

Regulations, 2003. In the present case, the examination of the list of investors with the

corresponding date of investment, given by the company, I find that the fund

mobilization continues subsequent to Sept 06, 2013, Therefore, the directors as on

of 27

Sept 06, 2013 and the company have violated reg. 4(2) (t) of FUTP Regulations.

11.6 The company vide its reply Jan 27, 2015 submitted that Mr. Devendra Pal Singh, Ms.

Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran Prakash had resigned from the directorship of the

company with effect from March 25, 2013. I have perused the certified copy of the

Board Resolution submitted by the company in this regard. From the records of MCA

website, I find that these three directors have resigned with effect from March 25,

2013. I further find Mr. Krishan Pal Singh has resigned vide board resolution dated

December 30, 2014. I note that the above directors were on the Board of the Company

during the time the Company had been collecting monies.

11.7 As far as the other directors namely, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ms. Guddi Devi, Mr.

Rajendra Singh Thakur, Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Natthu Singh, Mr. Raksha

Pal Singh are concerned they are acting as directors as on this date as per the records.

The company also has not denied their directorship as on this date.

11.8 In view of the violation committed by such directors and the company, they are liable,

to wind up the scheme and repay the amount collected along with the company with

interest, to be abstained from collecting any money from the investors or launch or

carry out any Collective Investment Schemes, or restrained from accessing the

securities market or to be prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in

securities market and therefore necessary consequential directions can be passed by

SEBI to that effect.

11.9 In view of the serious findings in the interim order and timely conclusion of

proceedings, the request of the noticees that directions issued in the interim order be

kept in abeyance till the final conclusion of the proceedings, the prayer made by the

noticees at the time of personal hearing is not granted. The said prayer becomes

infructous in view of this final order.

12.1 In view of the observations made in this order, I, in exercise of the powers conferred

upon me under Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

and Sections 11(1), 11B and 11(4) thereof and Regulation 65 of the SEBI (Collective

Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999, hereby issue the following directions:

of 27

a) Kalpbut Real Estate Limited [CIN: U45400UP2007PLC034180] and its directors

namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh [PAN: AENPS9792L], Mr. Krishan Pal Singh

[PAN: AMYPS0600G], Ms. Guddi Devi [PAN: AJXPD0444R], Mr. Rajendra

Singh Thakur [PAN: ABUPT7761N], Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh [PAN:

DEWPS4079J], Mr. Natthu Singh [PAN: DKBPS2620L], Mr. Raksha Pal Singh

[PAN: BDSPS9886A], Mr. Devendra Pal Singh [PAN: BJVPS0029N], Ms.

Rajeshwari Sengar [PAN : AVZPS2724H] and Mr. Pooran Prakash [PAN :

ALLPP2252K] shall abstain from collecting any money from the investors in

respect of the schemes identified as a Collective Investment Scheme in this Order.

b) Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and its directors namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh,

Mr. Krishan Pal Singh, Ms. Guddi Devi, Mr. Rajendra Singh Thakur, Mr.

Parvesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Natthu Singh, Mr. Raksha Pal Singh, Mr. Devendra

Pal Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran Prakash are restrained from

accessing the securities market, including by way of sponsoring or causing to

sponsor or carrying on or causing to carry on any Collective Investment

Schemes, and are prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in

securities market, for a period of four years.

c) Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and its directors namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh,



Pal Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran Prakash shall wind up the

existing Collective Investment Schemes and refund the money collected by the

said company under the schemes with interest at the rate of 15% per annum

within a period of three months from the date of this Order and thereafter within

a period of fifteen days, submit a winding up and repayment report to SEBI in

accordance with the SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999,

including the trail of funds claimed to be refunded, bank account statements

indicating refund to the investors and receipt from the investors acknowledging

such refunds.

of 27

d) Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and its directors namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, ,

Ms. Guddi Devi, Mr. Rajendra Singh Thakur, Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh, Mr.

Natthu Singh, Mr. Raksha Pal Singh, shall not alienate or dispose off or sell any

of the assets of Kalpbut Real Estate Limited except for the purpose of making

refunds to its investors as directed above.

e) Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and its directors namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh,



Pal Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran Prakash are also directed to

provide a full inventory of all their assets and properties and details of all their

bank accounts, demat accounts and holdings of shares/securities, if held in

physical form.

12.2 In the event of failure by Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and its directors namely Mr.

Bhanu Pratap Singh, Mr. Krishan Pal Singh, Ms. Guddi Devi, Mr. Rajendra Singh

Thakur, Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Natthu Singh, Mr. Raksha Pal Singh, Mr.

Devendra Pal Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran Prakash to comply with

the above directions

f) Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and its directors namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh,



Pal Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran Prakash shall remain

restrained from accessing the securities market and would further be prohibited

from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, even after the period of

four years of restraint imposed in paragraph 12(b) above, till all the Collective

Investment Schemes are wound up and all the monies mobilized through such

schemes are refunded to its investors along with interest.

g) SEBI would make a reference to the State Government/ Local Police to register a

civil/ criminal case against Kalpbut Real Estate Limited, its promoters, directors

and its managers/ persons in-charge of the business and its schemes, for offences

of 27

of fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of public funds;

and

h) SEBI would make a reference to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, to initiate the

process of winding up of the company, Kalpbut Real Estate Limited.

i) SEBI shall initiate attachment and recovery proceedings under the SEBI Act and

rules and regulations framed there-under.

13. This Order shall be without prejudice to the right of SEBI to initiate prosecution

proceedings under Section 24 and adjudication proceedings under Chapter VIA of the

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 against Kalpbut Real Estate Limited and

its directors namely Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Mr. Krishan Pal Singh, Ms. Guddi Devi, Mr.

Rajendra Singh Thakur, Mr. Parvesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Natthu Singh, Mr. Raksha Pal

Singh, Mr. Devendra Pal Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Sengar and Mr. Pooran Prakash, including

other persons who are in default, for the violations as found in this Order.

14. This order shall come into force with immediate effect.

15. Copy of this Order shall be forwarded to the stock exchanges and depositories for

necessary action.

DATE : July 03, 2015 PRASHANT SARAN

PLACE : Mumbai WHOLE TIME MEMBER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Order in the matter of M/s Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd

Documents

Transcript of Order in the matter of M/s Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd