Saffron Capital Advisors LM Not Done Compliance Of Uday ShivKumar Infra IPO as per SEBI Observation.....

 

Mumbai: Uday Shiv Kumar Infra Limited Launched Rs 66 Cr approx IPO and appointed Saffron Capital Advisors Pvt Ltd as lead Manager . As per SEBI Observation the lenders NOC is mandatory but Saffron Capital did not done compliance of this SEBI Observation and filed prospectus before ROC . The infra company has taken loans from 7-8 banks and companies but only SBI NOC was shared with applicant. 

There was huge irregularties in other documents . The BSE shared in principle approval letter without signature and NSE letter was digitally sign but sign was not verified . Saffron says that the letter is received by email so no signature is required . The email is only medium of communication like post office and courier. The saffron also failed to show board of directors resolution in favour by NSE and BSE management in favour of letter issuing authority. The SEBI AGM Amruta Naik which give observation to this IPO is silent on this matter. Why she allowed IPO without complaince of section 25(4)to (9) of ICDR 2018?

The LM issued complaince certificate to board without doing all such basic compliance and AGM Amruta Naik made compromised with the rule of law.  The Complaint is pending before SEBI to check the irregularties  in the interest of millions of investors. 

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Misra Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 January, 2013

 

The petitioner was an elected Sarpanch. He was removed from his office by an unsigned order, Annexure P-5. It is the significant question of law, as posed above.

Further, after giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the peculiar fact situation of the present case, it is unhesitatingly held that impugned order (Annexure P-5), was no order in the eyes of law because admittedly, it was not signed by the competent authority.. 

In the absence of important documents/ Compliance  SEBI floated this IPO by using fraud practice . Violation of rule of law with common intention is crime under law.  LM  secured the license by misrepresentation ie fraud and Fraud vitiates all actions. 

"Fraud" means an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill will towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two element, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.  

A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representation, which he knows to be false, and injury ensures there from although the motive from which the representation proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on Court is always viewed seriously. Fraud and deception are synonymous.  

 

The Supreme  court  In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555, the Court observed that fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.  

 In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581, the Apex Court observed that "fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.  

 

Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 paragraphs-13, 14, 15, 18 and 25 has held as under :- 

 13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath.) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB p. 712) “… No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.”