Kimsuk Krishna Sinha, whose complaint led SEBI to impose a fine on DLF and bar its promoters from the market for inadequate disclosures during its IPO in 2007, has again written to the regulator. This time, he has alleged that material information is missing from the company’s prospectus for its ₹3,000-crore QIP offer.

DLF’s QIP closed last week but primary investigations into the matter are on, sources close to SEBI told BusinessLine .

Sinha said in his letter that DLF had failed to mention certain cases related to the violation of the Haryana Land Ceiling Act, 1972, where adverse orders were passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the matter is pending with the Supreme Court. An adverse decision by the apex court could have huge ramifications for DLF investors, Sinha added.

The high court had ordered an inquiry against DLF and a few other companies including Jesen Builders and Developers, and directed that the matter be clubbed with another writ petition, related to Aaliyah Real Estate vs State of Haryana, the letter said. Both Aaliyah and Jesen are related to DLF, which has challenged the high court orders against them in the Supreme Court. Sinha said DLF’s QIP prospectus did not disclose anything about its subsidiaries or DLF itself challenging the high court order.

Responding to an email query from BusinessLine , DLF said: “Neither Jensen Builders nor Aaliyah Real Estate are our subsidiaries... Two other companies, which are a part of the DLF group, were petitioners in the said complaint referred to in Sinha’s mail, but no disclosure of the same was warranted as per company policy...All legal proceedings filed by Mr Kimsuk K Sinha...have been disclosed in detail in the PPD/PD.”

A DLF spokesperson said Sinha’s complaint “is nothing more than a fresh attempt to besmirch our name and create unnecessary nuisance by propping up baseless allegations at a time when the QIP process was under way... SEBI will find no merit in the said complaint.”

Saurabh S, Sinha’s advocate, said: “Joint operations, under the placement documents, are subject to direct right to assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses but without any equity participation. To my mind, it is an interesting concept of deep control but seemingly at arm’s length. Investigation can reveal more as DLF had even claimed earlier, during its IPO, that companies against whom there were criminal complaints did not belong to them.”

Related Topics