[Resolved] Basil International Ltd — Maturity | |
I have invested Rs 10, 000/ in Appeline Cosmetics & Toiletries Ltd, in the group of(Basil International Ltd) on 21/9/2002 for 5 years. My 5 years was completed on 21/9/2007 but still date (21/10/2008)i have not received my MATURITY Rs 19, 900/. I heard from my Agent that in West Bengal Agents are collecting Crore of Money, i just say all the Agents, please come in Upper Assam and see you are collecting crore of money, here crore of peoples deprived to there Maturity. The Asansol Division is not given any Interest for clearing Maturity We are going to Legal Action for this Company. Was this information helpful? | |
Aug 14, 2020 Complaint marked as Resolved | |
 185 Comments | |
Comments
Why BASILINTERNATIONAL LTD. changed his name divsionaly as TOGOINTERNATIONAL LTD. is it possible one company work with two name?
Dear Sir,
We face lots of problem in Assam, As some newspaper published against this company and said this company has no authority for make the business Also Govt. has is not liabe for the same. Kindly arrange to visit North Lakhimpur Branch and discussed with us details. We hope u should take action for the same at the earliest.
Thanking You,
B.J. Mahanat
Code No. 02/12386/ 8015A
We face lots of problem in Assam, As some newspaper published against this company and said this company has no authority for make the business Also Govt. has is not liabe for the same. Kindly arrange to visit North Lakhimpur Branch and discussed with us details. We hope u should take action for the same at the earliest.
Thanking You,
B.J. Mahanat
Code No. 02/12386/ 8015A
Dear Gumasto Hembram
Thank you for rising your voice against this type of corruption.as come two know from different portal or from my personal observation i'm trying to tell here according to your questions.and it is to mention that not only bil there are thousands of such companies to cheat people in our country and uneducated, illiterate people from rural and remote areas are there soft target, they are being cheated but cannot take necessary steps being in there socio-economic position.
1)Cheater has to offer exaggerated schemes.
2)I think its a matter of concern of SEBI. SEBI trying make awareness trough news paper advertising. But the the massage cannot reach to the grass-root level.
3) Administration, in many cases, is reluctant to take right steps at right time.
4)most of the victims are not aware of their rights.
Thank you for rising your voice against this type of corruption.as come two know from different portal or from my personal observation i'm trying to tell here according to your questions.and it is to mention that not only bil there are thousands of such companies to cheat people in our country and uneducated, illiterate people from rural and remote areas are there soft target, they are being cheated but cannot take necessary steps being in there socio-economic position.
1)Cheater has to offer exaggerated schemes.
2)I think its a matter of concern of SEBI. SEBI trying make awareness trough news paper advertising. But the the massage cannot reach to the grass-root level.
3) Administration, in many cases, is reluctant to take right steps at right time.
4)most of the victims are not aware of their rights.
same problem we are also facing in namsai...our branch is of Naharkatia.to whom should we contact..
Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 22:32
MCA orders SFIO to probe five firms for duping investors
MCA orders SFIO probe against five companies for duping investors, reports Malvika Jain of TV18.
MCA orders Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to probe against five companies for duping investors, reports Malvika Jain of TV18.
Five companies, Basil International, Basil Express, Vamshi Chemicals, Nixcil Pharmacutical and Appeline Cosmetics will be probed by the SFIO. These companies have been raising public deposits under the garb of private placements.
These companies have not been adhering to the private placement norms, they have issued no advertisement and till March 2010 they have raised funds to the tune of Rs 1, 360 crore from more than 50 people, and even the principle amount has not been returned to many investors on maturity.
Interestingly, all of these five companies belong to the same group, where most of the directors are the same and some even have the same registered address. Letters sent by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to these companies have returned undelivered stating that these companies do not exist on the mentioned addresses.
SFIO is now going to look into allegations of money laundering, misappropriation of funds, violating the private placement provisions of the Companies Act and other discrepancies which it may find.
MCA orders SFIO to probe five firms for duping investors
MCA orders SFIO probe against five companies for duping investors, reports Malvika Jain of TV18.
MCA orders Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to probe against five companies for duping investors, reports Malvika Jain of TV18.
Five companies, Basil International, Basil Express, Vamshi Chemicals, Nixcil Pharmacutical and Appeline Cosmetics will be probed by the SFIO. These companies have been raising public deposits under the garb of private placements.
These companies have not been adhering to the private placement norms, they have issued no advertisement and till March 2010 they have raised funds to the tune of Rs 1, 360 crore from more than 50 people, and even the principle amount has not been returned to many investors on maturity.
Interestingly, all of these five companies belong to the same group, where most of the directors are the same and some even have the same registered address. Letters sent by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to these companies have returned undelivered stating that these companies do not exist on the mentioned addresses.
SFIO is now going to look into allegations of money laundering, misappropriation of funds, violating the private placement provisions of the Companies Act and other discrepancies which it may find.
plz give me details about this company.Please the office of jharkhand and tale me about of ageant in ranchi.
dear sir the same case is here i had deposit Rs.200 every day for 18 months in bokanjan branch till today no information yet plz tell me when will get good news ...
and further ihad that company is spread all over india then how can u cheat us???????? plz organise sme thing
plz reply soon
surendra
[protected]
and further ihad that company is spread all over india then how can u cheat us???????? plz organise sme thing
plz reply soon
surendra
[protected]
My maturity Amount 1 lac mat.date was Oct, Nov & Dec'12 But Till now i am not received my maturity amount.Now i think basil is chutia company & my senior is very chutia they are from Agartala branch, at joining time agartala senior basil agent r come & trust us basil is very good company.if i demand my senior person to return my maturity amount they will not give any answer & also not pick up my phone.Now i believe that Basil International ltd & Agartala Senior Members both are CHUTIA.
Regards
Guwahati Agent
Regards
Guwahati Agent
dear sir, many complain are lunchued against basil international due to non payment of maturity value in assam then why u froud to poor people .is it right if it happens frequently then we lodge a petetion in high court .be white
BASIL IS THE BEST I AM RETURN MATURITY TIME TO TIME FROM KALYANI BARANCH
Dear Sir,
We are hardly thinking about deposited money. I have deposited Rs 50, 000.00 (6.2years ago and maturity date 10.09.2013) but, in the present situation we are thinking about the future of deposited money. Please confirm the present condition of BESIL Groups and my deposited money.
Thanking you.
yours faithfully,
With regards/-
Satya Ranjan Biswas.
We are hardly thinking about deposited money. I have deposited Rs 50, 000.00 (6.2years ago and maturity date 10.09.2013) but, in the present situation we are thinking about the future of deposited money. Please confirm the present condition of BESIL Groups and my deposited money.
Thanking you.
yours faithfully,
With regards/-
Satya Ranjan Biswas.
p
p.. for ramakanta mohanta is a pelo
jara jara maturity pao ni amar mane hai akta protibad kara darkar ta na hale SARADA GROUP r mato taka mere palabe ai BASIL CO. regional branch 27/2, Opposite Bengal Jewellary, Suren Tagore Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata - 700019 bandha kare diache .tai balbo jara amar mato problem fill karchen ba vabiswate parben bale mane kare sabai akjot haye BRANCH theke REGIONAL BRANCH, 316/207 Apcar Garden (East)
(Opp. Pushpa Vatika)
Asansol – 713304, Dist. – Burdwan (W.B)
Tel. No.[protected]
Fax No.[protected]
DIVISIONAL OFFICE ASANSOL giye khoj nin.jate amar ai pribad safal hai please sabai agia asun...
(Opp. Pushpa Vatika)
Asansol – 713304, Dist. – Burdwan (W.B)
Tel. No.[protected]
Fax No.[protected]
DIVISIONAL OFFICE ASANSOL giye khoj nin.jate amar ai pribad safal hai please sabai agia asun...
WTM/SR/NRO-CIS/05/05/2013
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
CORAM: S. RAMAN, WHOLE TIME MEMBER
ORDER
Under section 11 and 11B of SEBI Act 1992 in the matter of Basil International
Limited
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI")
received a complaint dated 23.6.2011 from the Office of the Directorate of
Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata, against M/s Basil International Limited
(hereinafter referred to as "BIL") wherein, it was stated that, the said office
had carried out a search operation at BIL’s office in Asansol and it had found
out that BIL was engaged in the business of taking deposits under the garb of
redeemable preference shares from rural people promising them returns
ranging from 11% - 14% and was utilizing such proceeds in paying huge
commission to its agents, investing in its business assets, fixed deposits and
siphoning off the funds as cash. Hence, the company was stated to be
running a ponzi scheme where liability was being met through deposits.
2. In the light of the nature of complaints received against BIL, SEBI decided to
analyse the case in detail. Accordingly, information was sought from BIL vide
SEBI's letter dated July 18, 2011 sent at the registered office address of BIL
Mini Shop No.12, main market, Satyaniketan (near Nanakpura Gurudwara)
Moti Bagh II, Delhi 110021) seeking information about its scheme(s) and
plan(s). The letter was returned undelivered with remarks that the company
had left the premises.
3. Information was also sought from the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter
referred to as "ROC") Delhi vide letter dated August 8, 2011. RoC, Delhi vide
letter dated September 2, 2011 submitted the Memorandum of Association,
Articles of Association, copies of Form 32 and Form 18 filed by BIL with its
office.
4. Letters dated October 31, 2011 written to BIL at its registered office and all its
other offices in Delhi seeking information about its schemes returned
undelivered.
5. SEBI conducted a physical inspection at the registered office address and
other office addresses of BIL on November 11, 2011 and November 18, 2011
in Delhi. It was found that BIL did not exist at any of the said addresses.
6. On the basis of documents received from RoC, a letter dated March 29, 2012
was sent to BIL at its registered office address as well as to all
promoter(s)/signatories to Memorandum of Association and Articles of
Association and to directors/additional directors of BIL, a total of thirty entities,
seeking information about the various scheme(s) and plan(s) of BIL. Out of Page 2 of 7
these letters, 9 letters returned undelivered, replies were received from 4
additional directors on the board of BIL and no response was received from
other entities.
7. SEBI received letter dated April 23, 2012 from BIL wherein it was informed
that scheme(s) of BIL were not in the nature of a collective investment
scheme in terms of Section 11AA of SEBI Act, 1992 and the company is
under process of collecting information as sought by SEBI.
8. SEBI vide letter dated July 16, 2012 sent to the corporate office of BIL in
Kolkata and vide letter dated September 11, 2012 sent to Shri. Prithi Paul
Singh Sethi and Shri. Satya Narayan Karmakar (directors of BIL) sought
information about BIL’s scheme(s) and plan(s). The letters written to the
directors of BIL returned undelivered.
9. BIL vide its letters dated July 24, 2012 and September 12, 2012 submitted that
since investments in different projects were a continuous process it was not
possible to identify funds collected for each individual project/scheme.
10. SEBI vide letter dated October 3, 2012 sent to BIL at its new registered office
address in Delhi(Unit No. 213, 2nd Floor, Vardhman Times Plaza, Plot No.13,
Road No.44, Pitam Pura, Delhi -110034) and corporate office address in
Kolkata once again sought information about its scheme(s) and plan(s). The
letter sent at the new registered office address in Delhi returned undelivered
while no response was received from BIL’s Kolkata office.
11. In the meanwhile SEBI conducted a site visit at the BIL’s corporate office in
Kolkata to obtain the requisite information. BIL officials present at the said
corporate office stated that the company’s registered office in Delhi was
operational and also that necessary documents and information would be sent
to SEBI. It may be noted that the registered office in Delhi referred to by the
BIL officials in Kolkata is the same address from where earlier letters had
returned undelivered.
12. BIL vide its letter dated January 16, 2013 reiterated its earlier stand that the
company would be unable to submit details regarding number of investors
and amount mobilized under each scheme and plan as investments in its
different projects is a continuous process and thus it is not possible to identify
funds collected under each scheme and plan. The company also submitted
the Memorandum and Articles of Association, Balance Sheet and Profit and
Loss Account for the financial year 2011-12.
13. SEBI issued letters dated February 8, 2013 sent to BIL at its corporate office
in Kolkata and registered office in Delhi (indicated to be operational by BIL)
seeking information about the schemes and plans of BIL. The letter sent at
BIL's registered office in Delhi returned undelivered and no response was
received from its corporate office in Kolkata.
14. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that BIL has not provided to SEBI the
required details/documents as sought from it. Since BIL also prima facie Page 3 of 7
appears to be mobilising funds through issuance of redeemable preference
shares, it becomes incumbent upon SEBI to intervene urgently in the matter .
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes necessary
for SEBI to act swiftly and proceed ex-parte on the basis of material available
on record.
15. I have perused the complaint received by SEBI in the matter, the
correspondences between SEBI and BIL, the application forms circulated by
BIL, the information/documents received from BIL and other material available
on record.
16. From the application form I note that BIL appears to have issued Redeemable
Preference Share to its promoters, directors, employees, shareholders and
their friends under various plans with varying redemption periods and
indicative yields.
17. I also note from the documents available on record that BIL has in operation
the following plans:-
S.No. Plan
Redemption
Period ( Yrs)
Min
Investment
(Rs.)
Indicative
Yield (%)
Redemption
Value (Rs.)
1 AA[protected]
2 BB 6 20, 000 11.5 191.66
3 DD[protected]
4 EE 6 1000 13.5 2138
5 FF[protected]
6 GG[protected]
7 HH 6 300 13.5 641
8 II[protected]
9 JJ[protected]
10 KK 6 500 13.5 1069
11 LL 3 20, 000 9 150
18. From the material available on record I note the following:-
(a) The offer of Redeemable Preference Shares is stated to have been
made to Promoters/Directors, employees, the shareholders and their
friends and relatives on private placement basis. Page 4 of 7
(b) From the copy of receipts and payment account of BIL received from
Directorate of Income Tax, Kolkata, BIL had mobilized Rs.959, 193, 767
(Rs. 95.9 cr approx) till year the financial year ending 2011 through
issue of share certificates.
(c) From the balance sheet of BIL as on March 31, 2012 as submitted by
BIL, BIL has mobilized Rs.92, 01, 72, 000 (Rs.92 cr approx.) through
issue of redeemable cumulative preference shares upto March 31,
2012.
(d) BIL has issued equity shares during FY 2009-10 as well as during FY
2011-12. Also, during FY 2011-12 BIL has authorized issue of
preference shares to the extent of Rs.101, 90, 01, 000 ( Rs.101.9 cr
approx.).
19. The brochure of BIL offering redeemable preference shares states that the
offer of Redeemable Preference Shares has been made to
promoters/directors, the employees, shareholders and their friends and
relatives only on private placement basis. However, the quantum of capital
mobilised by BIL (approximately Rs.95 crores) as on March 31, 2011 through
issuance of the said redeemable preference shares prima facie indicates that
the offer of such shares was a public offer made to more than fifty persons
within the meaning of the term "offer" made to the public under the first
proviso to sub-section (3) of section 67 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section
67 of the Companies Act states that "Any reference in this Act or in the
articles of a company to offering shares or debentures to the public shall,
subject to any provision to the contrary contained in this Act and subject also
to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), be construed as including a
reference to offering them to any section of the public...". Sub-section (3) of
section 67 states that "No offer or invitation shall be treated as made to the
public by virtue of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, if the
offer or invitation can properly be regarded (a) as not being calculated to
result, directly or indirectly, in the shares or debentures becoming available for
subscription or purchase by persons other than those receiving the offer or
invitation; or (b) otherwise as being a domestic concern of the persons making
and receiving the offer or invitation". The first proviso to section 67 (3) of the
Companies Act states that "Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall apply in a case where the offer or invitation to subscribe for
shares or debentures is made to fifty persons or more". Therefore, in the
instant case pertaining to issuance of redeemable preference shares by BIL,
there appears to have been, inter alia, a non-compliance with section 67 of
the Companies Act.
20. Non–compliance and non-cooperation by BIL in submitting information to
SEBI, no prospectus having been filed by BIL with the RoC, and complaints
received against BIL also indicate that BIL is attempting to conceal
information about the offer size and other essential details in order to avoid
compliance with company law and securities law. Page 5 of 7
21. I have observed that BIL has repeatedly refused to submit details of funds
mobilized under its various schemes and plans as well as details of number
of investors in such plan(s). It has stated that its investment in different
projects is on continuous basis and hence it is not possible for it to identify
funds collected for each individual project/ scheme. However, this is not a
valid ground for withholding information which is essential for verifying legal
compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and other
applicable law.
22. In terms of section 55A of the Companies Act, 1956, section 67, so far as it
relates to issue and transfer of securities, shall be administered by SEBI in the
case of listed companies and companies which intend to get their securities
listed. Section 73 (1) of the Companies Act requires a company offering
shares or debentures to the public to apply to a recognised stock exchange
for permission for the shares or debentures to be dealt with in the stock
exchange. In this regard, I note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited & Ors. v. SEBI has,
vide its judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 held that an offer to fifty or more
persons becomes public issue by virtue of first proviso to section 67(3) of the
Companies Act and thereby attracts compulsory listing as mandated under
section 73 of the Companies Act. Therefore, if BIL has made a public offer of
securities in terms of the Companies Act, it would be SEBI's legal mandate to
administer the provisions of the Companies Act applicable to the said public
offer.
23. In the instant case, though details of the amount mobilized by BIL under its
preference share issue are available with SEBI, no information regarding the
number of investors to whom such offer was made or who subscribed to such
an issue is currently available. The said information has been sought on
various occasions from BIL but BIL has refused to co-operate with SEBI.
Further, the RoC records pertaining to BIL do not indicate any filing by BIL
regarding such issue of redeemable preference share with the RoC.
24. It is noted from the letter dated 23.06.2011 received from the Directorate of
Income-Tax(Investigation), Kolkata, that BIL is not registered as a NonBanking Financial Company with Reserve Bank of India. Further, it is noted
that BIL has not appointed any SEBI registered Registrar to an Issue / Share
Transfer Agent for the issue of Redeemable Preference Shares.
25. It is pertinent to note that under the SEBI Act, 1992, SEBI has a statutory duty
to protect the interests of investors in securities and promote the development
of, and to regulate, the securities market.. Section 11 of the SEBI Act has
empowered it to take such measures as it thinks fit for fulfilling its legislative
mandate. SEBI's powers under sections 11, 11A and 11B of the SEBI Act, as
interpreted by judicial authority, are not fettered by any other law including the
Companies Act and in view of provisions of section 55A of the Companies
Act, administrative authority on the subjects relating to public issue of
securities is exclusively with SEBI. For this purpose, SEBI can exercise its
jurisdiction under sections 11(1), 11A(1)(b) and 11B of the SEBI Act over
companies who issue redeemable preference shares to fifty or more persons, Page 6 of 7
but do not comply with the applicable provisions of the Companies Act
including section 73(1).
26. Further, in order to ensure that BIL does not collect further funds and also to
safeguard the assets or property acquired through such funds of the investing
public till complete details are brought out and a final decision is accordingly
taken in the matter, it becomes necessary for SEBI to take urgent preventive
and remedial action by way of this ex-parte order. In the absence of such
preventive action, irreparable loss and damage may be caused to investors.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, I, in exercise of powers conferred upon me by
virtue of section 19 of the SEBI Act, issue the following directions under
sections 11 and 11B thereof, by way of this ad-interim ex-parte order :-
(a) M/s Basil International Limited having its Registered office at Unit No. 213,
2nd Floor, Vardhman Times Plaza, Plot No.13, Road No.44, Pitam Pura,
Delhi -110034 and corporate office at " 27/2, Suren Tagore road, Ground
Floor(Oppo. to Bengal Jewellery) Kolkatta- 770019, and its promoters and
directors including Shri.Satya Narayan Karmakar, Shri. Sourindra Nath
Mukherjee, Shri. Biplab Talukdar, Shri. Manindra Kumar Basu, Shri. Susanto
Chatterjee, Shri. Jayanta Kumar Basu, Monami Basu, Sadhan Kumar Nandi,
Sarmistha Sengupta Saikia, Korobi Sengupta, Shri. Kaushik Chattopadhyay
and Shri. Promothesh Banerjee, are hereby directed not to collect any
money from investors;
(b) The properties/assets which have been owned or acquired by M/s Basil
International Limited shall not be disposed of by it without prior permission of
SEBI; and
(c) BIL is hereby directed not to divert any fund raised from public at large kept in
bank account and/or at the custody of the company.
28. This order is without prejudice to the right of SEBI to take any other action that
may be initiated against BIL, its promoters and directors in accordance with law.
29. This order shall be treated as a show cause notice to M/s Basil International
Limited, its promoters and directors including directors including Shri.Satya
Narayan Karmakar, Shri. Sourindra Nath Mukherjee, Shri. Biplab Talukdar, Shri.
Manindra Kumar Basu, Shri. Susanto Chatterjee, Shri. Jayanta Kumar Basu,
Monami Basu, Sadhan Kumar Nandi, Sarmistha Sengupta Saikia, Korobi
Sengupta, Shri. Kaushik Chattopadhyay and Shri. Promothesh Banerjee, who
may show cause as to why appropriate actions under the SEBI Act should not
be taken/issued against them for non-compliance with the provisions of the
Companies Act including Sections 56, 60, 69, 73 etc .
30. M/s Basil International Limited, its promoters and directors including Shri.Satya
Narayan Karmakar, Shri. Sourindra Nath Mukherjee, Shri. Biplab Talukdar, Shri.
Manindra Kumar Basu, Shri. Susanto Chatterjee, Shri. Jayanta Kumar Basu,
Monami Basu, Sadhan Kumar Nandi, Sarmistha Sengupta Saikia, Korobi Page 7 of 7
Sengupta, Shri. Kaushik Chattopadhyay and Shri. Promothesh Banerjee
shall, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order, file their reply, if any.
They may also indicate, in their replies, whether they wish to avail an opportunity
of personal hearing in the matter.
31. This Order shall come into force with immediate effect and the directions issued
hereinabove shall continue till further orders.
S RAMAN
Date: 16th May 2013 WHOLE TIME MEMBER
Place: Mumbai SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
CORAM: S. RAMAN, WHOLE TIME MEMBER
ORDER
Under section 11 and 11B of SEBI Act 1992 in the matter of Basil International
Limited
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI")
received a complaint dated 23.6.2011 from the Office of the Directorate of
Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata, against M/s Basil International Limited
(hereinafter referred to as "BIL") wherein, it was stated that, the said office
had carried out a search operation at BIL’s office in Asansol and it had found
out that BIL was engaged in the business of taking deposits under the garb of
redeemable preference shares from rural people promising them returns
ranging from 11% - 14% and was utilizing such proceeds in paying huge
commission to its agents, investing in its business assets, fixed deposits and
siphoning off the funds as cash. Hence, the company was stated to be
running a ponzi scheme where liability was being met through deposits.
2. In the light of the nature of complaints received against BIL, SEBI decided to
analyse the case in detail. Accordingly, information was sought from BIL vide
SEBI's letter dated July 18, 2011 sent at the registered office address of BIL
Mini Shop No.12, main market, Satyaniketan (near Nanakpura Gurudwara)
Moti Bagh II, Delhi 110021) seeking information about its scheme(s) and
plan(s). The letter was returned undelivered with remarks that the company
had left the premises.
3. Information was also sought from the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter
referred to as "ROC") Delhi vide letter dated August 8, 2011. RoC, Delhi vide
letter dated September 2, 2011 submitted the Memorandum of Association,
Articles of Association, copies of Form 32 and Form 18 filed by BIL with its
office.
4. Letters dated October 31, 2011 written to BIL at its registered office and all its
other offices in Delhi seeking information about its schemes returned
undelivered.
5. SEBI conducted a physical inspection at the registered office address and
other office addresses of BIL on November 11, 2011 and November 18, 2011
in Delhi. It was found that BIL did not exist at any of the said addresses.
6. On the basis of documents received from RoC, a letter dated March 29, 2012
was sent to BIL at its registered office address as well as to all
promoter(s)/signatories to Memorandum of Association and Articles of
Association and to directors/additional directors of BIL, a total of thirty entities,
seeking information about the various scheme(s) and plan(s) of BIL. Out of Page 2 of 7
these letters, 9 letters returned undelivered, replies were received from 4
additional directors on the board of BIL and no response was received from
other entities.
7. SEBI received letter dated April 23, 2012 from BIL wherein it was informed
that scheme(s) of BIL were not in the nature of a collective investment
scheme in terms of Section 11AA of SEBI Act, 1992 and the company is
under process of collecting information as sought by SEBI.
8. SEBI vide letter dated July 16, 2012 sent to the corporate office of BIL in
Kolkata and vide letter dated September 11, 2012 sent to Shri. Prithi Paul
Singh Sethi and Shri. Satya Narayan Karmakar (directors of BIL) sought
information about BIL’s scheme(s) and plan(s). The letters written to the
directors of BIL returned undelivered.
9. BIL vide its letters dated July 24, 2012 and September 12, 2012 submitted that
since investments in different projects were a continuous process it was not
possible to identify funds collected for each individual project/scheme.
10. SEBI vide letter dated October 3, 2012 sent to BIL at its new registered office
address in Delhi(Unit No. 213, 2nd Floor, Vardhman Times Plaza, Plot No.13,
Road No.44, Pitam Pura, Delhi -110034) and corporate office address in
Kolkata once again sought information about its scheme(s) and plan(s). The
letter sent at the new registered office address in Delhi returned undelivered
while no response was received from BIL’s Kolkata office.
11. In the meanwhile SEBI conducted a site visit at the BIL’s corporate office in
Kolkata to obtain the requisite information. BIL officials present at the said
corporate office stated that the company’s registered office in Delhi was
operational and also that necessary documents and information would be sent
to SEBI. It may be noted that the registered office in Delhi referred to by the
BIL officials in Kolkata is the same address from where earlier letters had
returned undelivered.
12. BIL vide its letter dated January 16, 2013 reiterated its earlier stand that the
company would be unable to submit details regarding number of investors
and amount mobilized under each scheme and plan as investments in its
different projects is a continuous process and thus it is not possible to identify
funds collected under each scheme and plan. The company also submitted
the Memorandum and Articles of Association, Balance Sheet and Profit and
Loss Account for the financial year 2011-12.
13. SEBI issued letters dated February 8, 2013 sent to BIL at its corporate office
in Kolkata and registered office in Delhi (indicated to be operational by BIL)
seeking information about the schemes and plans of BIL. The letter sent at
BIL's registered office in Delhi returned undelivered and no response was
received from its corporate office in Kolkata.
14. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that BIL has not provided to SEBI the
required details/documents as sought from it. Since BIL also prima facie Page 3 of 7
appears to be mobilising funds through issuance of redeemable preference
shares, it becomes incumbent upon SEBI to intervene urgently in the matter .
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes necessary
for SEBI to act swiftly and proceed ex-parte on the basis of material available
on record.
15. I have perused the complaint received by SEBI in the matter, the
correspondences between SEBI and BIL, the application forms circulated by
BIL, the information/documents received from BIL and other material available
on record.
16. From the application form I note that BIL appears to have issued Redeemable
Preference Share to its promoters, directors, employees, shareholders and
their friends under various plans with varying redemption periods and
indicative yields.
17. I also note from the documents available on record that BIL has in operation
the following plans:-
S.No. Plan
Redemption
Period ( Yrs)
Min
Investment
(Rs.)
Indicative
Yield (%)
Redemption
Value (Rs.)
1 AA[protected]
2 BB 6 20, 000 11.5 191.66
3 DD[protected]
4 EE 6 1000 13.5 2138
5 FF[protected]
6 GG[protected]
7 HH 6 300 13.5 641
8 II[protected]
9 JJ[protected]
10 KK 6 500 13.5 1069
11 LL 3 20, 000 9 150
18. From the material available on record I note the following:-
(a) The offer of Redeemable Preference Shares is stated to have been
made to Promoters/Directors, employees, the shareholders and their
friends and relatives on private placement basis. Page 4 of 7
(b) From the copy of receipts and payment account of BIL received from
Directorate of Income Tax, Kolkata, BIL had mobilized Rs.959, 193, 767
(Rs. 95.9 cr approx) till year the financial year ending 2011 through
issue of share certificates.
(c) From the balance sheet of BIL as on March 31, 2012 as submitted by
BIL, BIL has mobilized Rs.92, 01, 72, 000 (Rs.92 cr approx.) through
issue of redeemable cumulative preference shares upto March 31,
2012.
(d) BIL has issued equity shares during FY 2009-10 as well as during FY
2011-12. Also, during FY 2011-12 BIL has authorized issue of
preference shares to the extent of Rs.101, 90, 01, 000 ( Rs.101.9 cr
approx.).
19. The brochure of BIL offering redeemable preference shares states that the
offer of Redeemable Preference Shares has been made to
promoters/directors, the employees, shareholders and their friends and
relatives only on private placement basis. However, the quantum of capital
mobilised by BIL (approximately Rs.95 crores) as on March 31, 2011 through
issuance of the said redeemable preference shares prima facie indicates that
the offer of such shares was a public offer made to more than fifty persons
within the meaning of the term "offer" made to the public under the first
proviso to sub-section (3) of section 67 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section
67 of the Companies Act states that "Any reference in this Act or in the
articles of a company to offering shares or debentures to the public shall,
subject to any provision to the contrary contained in this Act and subject also
to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), be construed as including a
reference to offering them to any section of the public...". Sub-section (3) of
section 67 states that "No offer or invitation shall be treated as made to the
public by virtue of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, if the
offer or invitation can properly be regarded (a) as not being calculated to
result, directly or indirectly, in the shares or debentures becoming available for
subscription or purchase by persons other than those receiving the offer or
invitation; or (b) otherwise as being a domestic concern of the persons making
and receiving the offer or invitation". The first proviso to section 67 (3) of the
Companies Act states that "Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall apply in a case where the offer or invitation to subscribe for
shares or debentures is made to fifty persons or more". Therefore, in the
instant case pertaining to issuance of redeemable preference shares by BIL,
there appears to have been, inter alia, a non-compliance with section 67 of
the Companies Act.
20. Non–compliance and non-cooperation by BIL in submitting information to
SEBI, no prospectus having been filed by BIL with the RoC, and complaints
received against BIL also indicate that BIL is attempting to conceal
information about the offer size and other essential details in order to avoid
compliance with company law and securities law. Page 5 of 7
21. I have observed that BIL has repeatedly refused to submit details of funds
mobilized under its various schemes and plans as well as details of number
of investors in such plan(s). It has stated that its investment in different
projects is on continuous basis and hence it is not possible for it to identify
funds collected for each individual project/ scheme. However, this is not a
valid ground for withholding information which is essential for verifying legal
compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and other
applicable law.
22. In terms of section 55A of the Companies Act, 1956, section 67, so far as it
relates to issue and transfer of securities, shall be administered by SEBI in the
case of listed companies and companies which intend to get their securities
listed. Section 73 (1) of the Companies Act requires a company offering
shares or debentures to the public to apply to a recognised stock exchange
for permission for the shares or debentures to be dealt with in the stock
exchange. In this regard, I note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited & Ors. v. SEBI has,
vide its judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 held that an offer to fifty or more
persons becomes public issue by virtue of first proviso to section 67(3) of the
Companies Act and thereby attracts compulsory listing as mandated under
section 73 of the Companies Act. Therefore, if BIL has made a public offer of
securities in terms of the Companies Act, it would be SEBI's legal mandate to
administer the provisions of the Companies Act applicable to the said public
offer.
23. In the instant case, though details of the amount mobilized by BIL under its
preference share issue are available with SEBI, no information regarding the
number of investors to whom such offer was made or who subscribed to such
an issue is currently available. The said information has been sought on
various occasions from BIL but BIL has refused to co-operate with SEBI.
Further, the RoC records pertaining to BIL do not indicate any filing by BIL
regarding such issue of redeemable preference share with the RoC.
24. It is noted from the letter dated 23.06.2011 received from the Directorate of
Income-Tax(Investigation), Kolkata, that BIL is not registered as a NonBanking Financial Company with Reserve Bank of India. Further, it is noted
that BIL has not appointed any SEBI registered Registrar to an Issue / Share
Transfer Agent for the issue of Redeemable Preference Shares.
25. It is pertinent to note that under the SEBI Act, 1992, SEBI has a statutory duty
to protect the interests of investors in securities and promote the development
of, and to regulate, the securities market.. Section 11 of the SEBI Act has
empowered it to take such measures as it thinks fit for fulfilling its legislative
mandate. SEBI's powers under sections 11, 11A and 11B of the SEBI Act, as
interpreted by judicial authority, are not fettered by any other law including the
Companies Act and in view of provisions of section 55A of the Companies
Act, administrative authority on the subjects relating to public issue of
securities is exclusively with SEBI. For this purpose, SEBI can exercise its
jurisdiction under sections 11(1), 11A(1)(b) and 11B of the SEBI Act over
companies who issue redeemable preference shares to fifty or more persons, Page 6 of 7
but do not comply with the applicable provisions of the Companies Act
including section 73(1).
26. Further, in order to ensure that BIL does not collect further funds and also to
safeguard the assets or property acquired through such funds of the investing
public till complete details are brought out and a final decision is accordingly
taken in the matter, it becomes necessary for SEBI to take urgent preventive
and remedial action by way of this ex-parte order. In the absence of such
preventive action, irreparable loss and damage may be caused to investors.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, I, in exercise of powers conferred upon me by
virtue of section 19 of the SEBI Act, issue the following directions under
sections 11 and 11B thereof, by way of this ad-interim ex-parte order :-
(a) M/s Basil International Limited having its Registered office at Unit No. 213,
2nd Floor, Vardhman Times Plaza, Plot No.13, Road No.44, Pitam Pura,
Delhi -110034 and corporate office at " 27/2, Suren Tagore road, Ground
Floor(Oppo. to Bengal Jewellery) Kolkatta- 770019, and its promoters and
directors including Shri.Satya Narayan Karmakar, Shri. Sourindra Nath
Mukherjee, Shri. Biplab Talukdar, Shri. Manindra Kumar Basu, Shri. Susanto
Chatterjee, Shri. Jayanta Kumar Basu, Monami Basu, Sadhan Kumar Nandi,
Sarmistha Sengupta Saikia, Korobi Sengupta, Shri. Kaushik Chattopadhyay
and Shri. Promothesh Banerjee, are hereby directed not to collect any
money from investors;
(b) The properties/assets which have been owned or acquired by M/s Basil
International Limited shall not be disposed of by it without prior permission of
SEBI; and
(c) BIL is hereby directed not to divert any fund raised from public at large kept in
bank account and/or at the custody of the company.
28. This order is without prejudice to the right of SEBI to take any other action that
may be initiated against BIL, its promoters and directors in accordance with law.
29. This order shall be treated as a show cause notice to M/s Basil International
Limited, its promoters and directors including directors including Shri.Satya
Narayan Karmakar, Shri. Sourindra Nath Mukherjee, Shri. Biplab Talukdar, Shri.
Manindra Kumar Basu, Shri. Susanto Chatterjee, Shri. Jayanta Kumar Basu,
Monami Basu, Sadhan Kumar Nandi, Sarmistha Sengupta Saikia, Korobi
Sengupta, Shri. Kaushik Chattopadhyay and Shri. Promothesh Banerjee, who
may show cause as to why appropriate actions under the SEBI Act should not
be taken/issued against them for non-compliance with the provisions of the
Companies Act including Sections 56, 60, 69, 73 etc .
30. M/s Basil International Limited, its promoters and directors including Shri.Satya
Narayan Karmakar, Shri. Sourindra Nath Mukherjee, Shri. Biplab Talukdar, Shri.
Manindra Kumar Basu, Shri. Susanto Chatterjee, Shri. Jayanta Kumar Basu,
Monami Basu, Sadhan Kumar Nandi, Sarmistha Sengupta Saikia, Korobi Page 7 of 7
Sengupta, Shri. Kaushik Chattopadhyay and Shri. Promothesh Banerjee
shall, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order, file their reply, if any.
They may also indicate, in their replies, whether they wish to avail an opportunity
of personal hearing in the matter.
31. This Order shall come into force with immediate effect and the directions issued
hereinabove shall continue till further orders.
S RAMAN
Date: 16th May 2013 WHOLE TIME MEMBER
Place: Mumbai SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Dear Sir/ Madam
I am Mr Bailochan Sahoo .At/po=Padampur; via=Anandapur, Dist=keonjhar.Odisha.my basil internationnal Ltd Agent code no is 05/2201B/11138 .Last 03 to 04 Years I have been working as Filed Manager under the Bhadrak branch, odisha.Now company doesnot take any legal action for the custmoers maturity and also all the my seniors do not pick-up their indivisual mobiles nos.I have already deposited 12lakh collected from customers.So that my life situation is very critical position. So I would like to requested to company management bodies please take legal action against this matter . My mob No is= 91-[protected].
I am Mr Bailochan Sahoo .At/po=Padampur; via=Anandapur, Dist=keonjhar.Odisha.my basil internationnal Ltd Agent code no is 05/2201B/11138 .Last 03 to 04 Years I have been working as Filed Manager under the Bhadrak branch, odisha.Now company doesnot take any legal action for the custmoers maturity and also all the my seniors do not pick-up their indivisual mobiles nos.I have already deposited 12lakh collected from customers.So that my life situation is very critical position. So I would like to requested to company management bodies please take legal action against this matter . My mob No is= 91-[protected].
TO APEAL ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RELATED TO THE BASIL. PLEASE GO TO THE B.C. ROYCHOUDHURY"S HOUSE FOR MATURITY. BECAUSE HE IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY TO PAYMENT MATURITY.
HIS ADDRESS:
BYPASS RUBI HOSPITAL
FLAT NO 659
NEAR ICICI BANK.
KALIKAPUR
HIS ADDRESS:
BYPASS RUBI HOSPITAL
FLAT NO 659
NEAR ICICI BANK.
KALIKAPUR
K chanti's reply, Mar 28, 2020
I want the money before maturity . The company of branch removed from locality and agent also disappeared. I want the money before maturity. From basil.hiw
Basil International Ltd — Not getting my MIS from May 2013
I have invested Rs. 500000 in Basil International Ltd. as Monthly Income Scheme. I am not getting my MIS from May 2013. they are always telling that money is not releasing from head office. So please resolve my problem as soon as possible. gajadhar SawCustomer satisfaction rating Customer satisfaction rating is a complex algorithm that helps our users determine how good
a company is at responding and resolving complaints by granting from 1 to 5 stars for each
complaint and then ultimately combining them all for an overall score.
Read more
Read more
22%
Complaints
168
Pending
0
Resolved
37
+91 33 2460 5526
27/2, Suren Tagore Road, Gariahat, Ballygunge, Kolkata, West Bengal, India - 700019
My questions are:
1) As far as I know that nor or any bank or share markets or money markets or any good NBFC or any genuine plan can effort to pay double of the public investments in 5yrs then how can BIL do?
2) How come our RBI has permitted such nuisance in our society?
3) How come our administration is mum?
4) Why can't any general public seek clarifications through PIL?
5) Where is Indian Banking Ombudsman?