472
June 29 To July 5, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 60securities account to the concerned client
account, (c) Securities transferred from pool
account to the concerned client account
All the DP accounts tagged as “Stock Bro-
ker – Client Account” are to be wound up
before August 31, 2019.
The SEBI has further advised to develop
mechanism for monitoring of closure of all
Depository Participants accounts that are
tagged as “Stock Broker- Client Account”
before August 31, 2019.EBI bars NDTV promoters from S
accessing security market for 2 yearsNew Delhi Television Ltd., In re [2019] 106
taxmann.com 187 (SEBI)
In the instant case, SEBI received a complaint
against the promoters of NDTV. It was alleged
that, promoters of the company concealed
the information about loan agreement from
the investors so that the investors continued
to trade in the shares of company blissfully
ignorant of the fact that the promoters of
the company had already vested their voting
rights to the extent of 30 per cent in favour
of a third external party.
SEBI conducted an investigation which re-
vealed that loan agreements had been used
to deceitfully transfer shares of NDTV up to
30 per cent to VCPL without the knowledge
of NDTV board or its shareholders.
SEBI held that the promoters/directors had
acted in flagrant breach of Code of Con-
duct. If the said information regarding loan
agreements had been disclosed by the di-
rectors/promoters to the Board of Directors
of company, then the company was bound
to intimate the same to the stock exchanges
which, in turn, would have disseminated such
information on their websites for information
of general public.
SEBI ruled that, the loan agreements were
structured as a scheme to defraud the investors
by camouflaging the information about theadversarial terms and conditions impinging
upon the interest of company’s sharehold-
ers, thereby inducing innocent investors to
continue to trade in the shares of company
oblivious of such adversarial developments
in the shareholding of the company.
Therefore, the promoters-directors were to be
restrained from accessing securities market
and dealing in securities during this period
of restraint/prohibition; further the existing
holding including units of mutual funds of
promoters/directors would remain frozen.
They were to be restrained from holding
or occupying position as Directors or any
Key Managerial personnel in company for a
period of two years and in any other listed
company for a period of one year.osit of rental receipt after removal Dep
of co.’s name wouldn’t be considered
as proof of running businessShri Balaji Cycle (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of
Companies [2019] 106 taxmann.com 80 (NCL- AT)
On account of non-filing of balance sheet
and annual return since its incorporation, the
RoC formed belief that the appellant was not
carrying out any business. The RoC struck
off the appellant-company from the registrar
of companies. The appellant submitted that
it was already in business of cycle manu-
facturing. To prove its claim, the appellant
deposited receipt of payment of lease rentals
paid to State Industrial Development Author-
ity. However, it was observed that said lease
rentals were deposited only after NCLT asked
for proof. The NCLT passed the impugned
order, wherein it dismissed the petition of
the appellant-company.
On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant-company
against removal of its name from register.
The NCLAT held that subsequent deposit of
lease rental could not be taken as a good
WEEKLY REVIEW