SEBI today prohibited Kolkata-based Sampriti Projects from mobilising funds through issuance of securities and also barred the company and its directors from dealing in the stock markets till further orders.

The company allegedly mobilised more than Rs 7 crore from about 7,000 investors from fiscal years 2007-08 to 2012-13 through issue of ‘Redeemable Preference Shares’

SEBI had found that Sampriti Projects had violated various capital market norms through such fund raising activities.

The market regulator observed that the company had issued the securities to over 50 persons which under the rules made it a public issue of securities and hence would require a compulsory listing on a recognised stock exchange.

Among others, the firm was also required to file a prospectus, which it failed to do.

In an interim order today, SEBI said steps were required to be taken in the matter “to ensure that only legitimate fund raising activities are carried on by Sampriti Projects and no investors are defrauded“.

The regulator has directed the company not to mobilise funds from investors through issuance of equity shares or any other securities till further orders.

The firms and its eight directors including past directors have been prohibited from the capital markets as well as from issuing offer documents, advertisement for soliciting money from the public for the issue of securities till further directions.

Further, the SEBI order has asked the company and its directors not to divert any funds raised from public at large.

Sampriti Projects has also been asked to provide a full inventory of all its assets and properties as well as furnish complete and relevant information sought by the regulator relating to the matter.

The company and its directors are required to submit all relevant information with SEBI within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order.

SEBI had begun looking into the matter in 2012 and had also received a complaint by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal in May, this year, alleging that the company was involved in illegal mobilisation of funds.

comment COMMENT NOW