Final Order in The Matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited

Final Order in the matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited
WTM/AB/IVD/ID19/16060/2022-23
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
FINAL ORDER
Under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11(4A),11A, 11B (1), 11B(2) and 15I of the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Rule 5 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding
Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995 and Sections 12A(1), 12A(2) and 23I of
Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956 read with Rule 5 of the Securities
Contracts (Regulation) (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules,
2005.
Noticee No. Name of Noticees PAN
1. Dalmia Industrial Development Limited AAACD9405B

2. Mr. Vikash Chowdhary ABXPC9870G
3. Mr. Raj Mohta AZXPM4978M
4. Mr. Vineet Chowdhary ACQPC5971Q
5. Mr. Alok Agarwal ACSPA4871B
6. Mr. Shailendra Nath Bakshi ACXPB4934B
7. Mr. Kishore Vasant Hajare AGSPH2965B
8. M/s R K P Associates Chartered AAGFR4500G

Accountants (CA. Aditya Chirimar)
(Aforesaid entities are hereinafter individually referred to by their respective name or Noticee number
and collectively as “the Noticees”.)
In the matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited
1. The present order deals with two show cause notices dated February 27, 2020 issued
by Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”). One
show cause notice (hereinafter referred to as “SCN I”) was issued to Noticee no. 1
to 7 calling upon them to show cause as to why suitable directions as deemed fit
under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11(4A), 11A and 11B(1) and 11B(2) read with Sections
15A(a), 15HA and 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
(hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act, 1992”), Section 12A(1) and 12A(2) of Securities
Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “SCRA, 1956”) read with
Page 1 of 51
Sections 23E and Section 23H of SCRA, 1956 should not be issued against them.
Second show cause notice (hereinafter referred to as “SCN II”) was issued to Noticee
no. 8 calling upon it to show cause as to why suitable directions as deemed fit under
Sections 11, 11B and 11D of SEBI Act, 1992 should not be issued against it. SCN I
alleges that Dalmia Industrial Development Limited (hereinafter referred to as
“Noticee no.1”/“DIDL”/”Company”) has violated Section 12A(a),(b) and (c) and
Section 11(2)(i) and 11(2)(ia) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 3(b), (c) and (d)
and Regulation 4(1) and 4(2) (f) and (r) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and
Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as “PFUTP Regulation, 2003”), Regulation 4(1)(a),(b),(c),(g),
4(2)(f)(ii)(6)&(7), 4(2)(f)(iii)(3),(6) and (12), Regulation 6(1), Regulation 17(1),
Regulation 21, Regulation 44(3), Regulation 46(1) & (2) (k), Regulation 17(8) read
with Part B of Schedule II, Regulation 33(2)(a) and Regulation 48 of SEBI (Listing
Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to
as “LODR Regulations, 2015”) read with Section 21 of SCRA, 1956. SCN I further
alleges that the Company’s directors, Mr. Vikash Chowdhary (Noticee no. 2), Mr. Raj
Mohta (Noticee no. 3), Mr. Vineet Chowdhary (Noticee no.4), (v) Alok Agarwal
(Noticee no. 5), Mr. Shailendra Nath Bakshi (Noticee no. 6), and Mr. Kishore Vasant
Hajare (Noticee no.7) have violated Section 12A(a) (b) and (c) and Section 11(2)(i)
and 11(2)(ia) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulations 3(b), (c) and (d) and Regulation
4(1) and 4(2) (f) and (r) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003, Regulation
4(1)(a),(b),(c),(g), 4(2)(f)(ii)(6)&(7), 4(2)(f)(iii)(3),(6) and (12), Regulation 6(1),
Regulations 17(1), Regulation 21, Regulations 44(3), Regulation 46(1) & (2)(k) of
LODR Regulations, 2015 read with Section 27 of SEBI Act, 1992, Regulation 17(8)
read with Part B of schedule II, Regulation 33(2)(a) and Regulation 48 of LODR
Regulations, 2015 read with Section 21 of SCRA, 1956. SCN II alleges that the
statutory auditor, M/s. R K P Associates Chartered Accountants (Noticee no. 8) has
violated Section 12A (a) (b) (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 3(b), (c) & (d)
and Regulation 4(1) and 4(2), (a), (e), (f) & (r) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003.
2. The brief facts of the case, the brief findings of the investigation and the allegations
levelled against the Noticees, as mentioned in the SCNs are as follows:
Page 2 of 51
2.1. SEBI passed an interim order on September 26, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
“interim order”) inter-alia directing the stock exchange to appoint an independent
Forensic Auditor to, inter alia, further verify:
i) Misrepresentation including of financials and/or business of DIDL,

if any;
ii) Misuse of the funds/books of accounts of DIDL, if any.
2.2. The directions in the interim order were confirmed by an order dated October 31,
2018 (hereinafter referred to as “confirmatory order”).
2.3. The Forensic Audit Report (hereinafter referred to as “FAR”) was forwarded by BSE
to SEBI and the findings of the FAR for the period of April 01, 2015 till March 31,
2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Investigation Period”) were examined by SEBI.
2.4. The investigation by SEBI, inter-alia, revealed the following:
I. Misrepresentation including of financials and misuse of funds/books

of accounts in violation of LODR Regulations, 2015;
II. Non furnishing of information/Non-cooperation by the Company;
III. Other violations of LODR Regulations, 2015.
3. The SCNs were served on the Noticees via Speed Post Acknowledgment Due
(SPAD) except for Noticee no. 1, for whom the service was effected through affixture.
Thereafter, the file was placed before me on February 08, 2021, for granting a date
of hearing in the matter. Accordingly, an opportunity for personal hearing was
scheduled on May 10, 2021. Hearing notice dated February 24, 2021 was delivered
to all Noticees by SPAD. Vide separate letters dated March 24, 2021 Noticee nos. 1,
2, 3, 4 and 6 acknowledged the receipt of the hearing notice. In reply to the same,
vide separate emails dated May 10, 2021, Authorised Representative of Noticee nos.
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Noticee no. 8 sought adjournment of the hearing citing the
prevailing pandemic. Remaining Noticees neither appeared for hearing nor
Page 3 of 51
requested for adjournment. A last and final opportunity of hearing was granted to all
the Noticees on October 20, 2021. On the said date the Authorised Representative
of Noticee nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Noticee no. 8 appeared and made submissions.
Since, the other Noticees neither appeared for hearing nor sought an adjournment to
the hearing, hearing was concluded qua all Noticees.
4. The following written replies/ submissions in the matter have been received from the
Noticees on the following dates, which are discussed in detail below:
Date of reply/written
Noticee No. Name of Noticees
submissions
November 25, 2020 and
1. Dalmia Industrial Development Limited
October 30, 2021
March 07, 2020 and April
7. Mr. Kishore Vasant Hajare
05, 2021
M/s R K P Associates Chartered March 07, 2020 and
8.
Accountants (C.A. Aditya Chirimar) October 30, 2021
5. Vide its reply dated November 25, 2020, Noticee no. 1 has submitted as follows:
i) As per the Cash Flow and its breakup and classification has been prepared by its
Auditors, through their audit staff comprising of a qualified Chartered Accountants
along with two audit assistants performing the said job bifurcated and regrouped
some figures. But that nowhere reflects its negligence or compromising with its
duty as a Management so as to misrepresent any facts and figure.
ii) The Noticee’s submission is as follows:
Year Income on Loan and Advances (Both Rate of return

short term & Loan Term)
2015-16 9.00 %
2016-17 9.00 %
Page 4 of 51
2017-18 9.00 %
iii) The observation of the Forensic auditor is erroneous. The Management took the
best call to protect the interest of the Company and also the funds. Even today
there were no default in any Loan and advances. Note that even Banks/Housing
Banks/ NBFC's are making losses in the Loan segment the Company has
protected the interest of the Stakeholders and there were no default.
iv) Out of total income of Rs. 4812 Lakhs earned during the F.Y. 2015 - 2016 income
of Rs. 45.06 lakhs is income earned out of Loans & Advances (both Short Term &
Long Term) given by the company Amounting to Rs. 535 lakhs which is
approximately 8.42 % return on Loan which is standard as per Industrial Standards
and higher that the Bank prevailing rate.
v) The Company is into trading of various Garments which as per industry standard
depends on credit facilities. Comparative with the turnover of the company in the
trading and the nature of business the company into at any given time in this
business, the debtor position has not 6-10 % over the turn over at any point of
time.
(In Lakhs)
Years 2016 2017 2018 2019
Turnover 4766.90 2310.80 1356.83 52.68
Debtors 302.99 320.74 439.05 24.29
vi) Further note that the debtors have been fully recovered in the F.Y. 18-19. The
allegations of the Forensic auditor in this account alone stand meaningless.
vii) GST was implemented with effect from 01, July 2017. The stocks lying with the
Company were without GST and it was easy for it to sell the entire stock on or
before 30th June, 2017 as there were buyers. Before it could start fresh trading
activities BSE declared the Company as a Shell Company on August 2017, hence
nobody was interested to do business with the Company hence the inventory
position which was nil continued till 31.03. 2019. With a lot of odds, the Company
for the F.Y. 2018-19 and 19-20 restarts it's trading businesses and made the
Page 5 of 51
turnover is Rs. 1356.83 & Rs. 52.68 respectively. Also, in the accounting standard
it was not mentioned the circumstances to continue with stick each and every time.
The forensic auditor has not applied his mind while framing this allegation.
viii) The preliminary expenses written off by the company is on the basis of the
estimates of the management. The figures were decided keeping in mind the utility
of the Expenses done by the management at that point of time and the accounting
standard.
ix) During the course of business as and when the company realizes the money from
its debtor, it is the prudential trade practice to pay the creditor. The transaction
alleged in the FAR are pertaining to realization from debtors and making payment
to the creditor hence there is no misrepresentation of books of accounts of misuse
of funds. The debtors pay as per their obligations and the Company pay according
to its obligations and realization of funds in a timely manner. The Forensic Auditor
failed to Justify any wrong in the same day of payment. The Debtors and creditors
position even certified by the Forensic Auditor in his report. The Allegations are
purely on assumptions and without any rational, hence needs to be set aside. The
Debtors were fully recovered and there were no bad debts, where as the Banks
are today facing problem with the Debtors.
x) Even today the company is doing business and the net worth of the Company still
intact.
xi) The Company’s office i.e. 9, India Exchange Place, 8th floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata
700001 is a Commercial Building having 8 floors and having more than 100 offices.
There is no company registered in our registered office address. The allegation is
baseless.
xii) In this part the forensic Auditor concluded that these irregularities as stated herein
above tantamount to misrepresentation of financials/misuse of funds/books of
accounts of the company during the investigation period and has misled the
existing and prospective investors. However, not a single allegation of the
forensics Auditor holds good as per the explanations given herein above. There
were not a single misrepresentation of financial statement and there was not a
complaint from any stake holders. The forensic Auditor is not a stake holder and
Page 6 of 51
neither an investor. The Books of the Company are properly audited and there was
not a single incident of or fraudulent transaction reported.
xiii) The company also submitted all the documents as called by SEBI. Mails to and
from BDO are attached for the kind perusal. Just to make an allegation the auditor
put this standard phase as part of their report.
xiv) The company has appointed a qualified company secretary and the details are as
under: When the company was declared as a shell company, no qualified
Company secretary was ready to join the Company despite multiple efforts which
includes issue of public Notice.
xv) The company during the relevant period maintained a web site fully functional.
Even today the site is functional. The Website address is as follows:
www.dalmiaindusty.co.in
xvi) The company appointed Mr. Raj Mohta as its compliance officer on 30th May 2017
and the details were there in the website. Even today the same was there. This
can be seen from the BSE data.
xvii) Regarding failing to maintain numbers of EDs on its board and appointment of risk
management committee, it is submitted that the regulation is not applicable to the
Company.
xviii) Voting results were always informed to BSE.
6. Vide his replies dated March 07, 2020 and April 16, 2021Noticee no. 7 has submitted as
follows:
i) He is the resident of Kombadpada, near Chatrapati Shivaji Chowk, Bhiwandi

and has never visited Kolkata and has no idea about Dalmia Industrial
Development Limited and is unaware about that who are Mr. Vikash
Chowdhury, Mr. Raj Mohta, Mr. Vineet Chowdhary, Mr. Alok Agarwal and Mr.
Shailendra Nath Bakshi who are said to be Directors of the said Company and
not even aware about M/S R K P Associates Charted Accountants through C.A.
Aditya Chirimar.
ii) He is not an Independent director of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited.
Page 7 of 51
iii) He has no idea and knowledge about said company, he is unaware about
ministry of corporate affairs.
iv) He has bank A/c at state Bank of India, which had Branch at Naupada(Thane)
with A/c No. 34773790835 and, that from 2015 till now he has no big amount
in Bank.
v) He is an Illiterate person only studied till 9th std, he did not know that he became
the Independent Director of said company.
vi) He was working as courier boy from 2012 to 2014 in Shree Enterprises as
Advertising boy with payment of only Rs. 4,500/- per month, than after he
worked in leela logistics company as field representative from 2 November,
2014 till 1 1 November 2018 only with payment ofRs. 13,150/- per month. And
from January 2019 to till date he is working in Amazon as a Delivery boy of
Parcel with Payment of Rs. 13,000/- .
7. Vide its replies dated March 07, 2020 and October 30, 2021, Noticee no. 8 has submitted as
follows:
i) The allegations made in the SCN are based on surmises, conjectures.

ii) Their Firm has not been negligent in the performance of its duties as it has carried
out proper due diligence and has reported alleged findings in its audit report. The
firm practices and maintains highest level of integrity and professional ethics.
iii) The observation in FAR that there is a net decrease in loans and advances given
by the Company to the tune of Rupees 171 Lakhs is not correct. The correct
change in loans and advances given by the Company as per Balance Sheet is as
below:
Note Number Balance of Loans And Balance of Loans Increase/(Decrease)

As in Baiance Advances Given by And Advances Given in Loans And
Sheet the Company as on by the Company as Advances
31.03.2017. on
31.03.2018.
8 Long Term Loans
And Advances
11 Short Term Loans

And Advances
Page 8 of 51
Total 54,5 1 ,820.00
Net Increase N.A. N.A. 54,5 1 ,820.OO

in Loans And
Advances
iv) The correct change in loans and advances given by the company as per Cash
Flow Statement is as below:
As depicted in Description Increase/(Decrease) The Major Head Of Assets And

the Cash Flow in Loans And Liabilities In Cash Flow Statement
Statement Advances
(A) Increase In Loans And Cash Flow From Operating Activity.

Advances Given To (Advance for Material Procurement)
Parties
(B) Loans And Advances Cash Flow from Investing Activity

Given To Other Parties
Loans Received Back Cash Flow from Investing Activity

From Parties
Net Increase in
Loans And
Advances
Thus, the apparent difference from Balance Sheet figures and Cash Flow
Statement is Rupees 11,07,226/-. The above difference is on account of interest
receivable net of taxes i.e. Rupees 11,07,226/-
v) Interest Receivable (Rs. 11,48,945) and Tax Deducted At Source (Rs. 41719) is
included in Long Term Loans and Advances and the same has not been reflected
Page 9 of 51
separately in the Cash Flow Statements but is included in Changes in Long Term
Loans and Advances.
Interest Receivable 1,48,945.00
Less: Tax Deducted At Source -41,719.00
Net Difference 11,07,226.00
As per the breakup and classification given above it is very much clear that the
Noticee’s audit staff comprising of a qualified Chartered Accountant bifurcated and
regrouped some figures. But that nowhere reflects their negligence or
compromising with their duty as an Auditor so as to misrepresent any facts and
figures.
vi) Investments made by the Company and its resultant benefits were enquired by the
Noticee during the course of Audit. The management explained that they have
invested an amount of Rupees 320 Lakhs as advance for acquiring a property to
E - City Projects Lucknow Private Limited and Rupees 20 Lakhs as advance
against Land at Bantalla both of which is stuck due to bottlenecks and hardships
of the developers of the concerned projects. Though, at that juncture the Noticee
did not act as a whistle-blower and took the projections and the statements of the
management. The explanations was that as the projects are being delayed thus
the company is venturing at other avenues and investing the surplus funds to
secure immediate gains from equity and loans and advances.
vii) With regard to the excessive writing off preliminary expenses it is submitted that
the assumptions and estimates are made by the management with regard to the
utility of such expenses. The Companies Act, 2013 nowhere states that the
Statutory Auditor is required to justify the assumptions and estimates of the
management with regard to writing off the preliminary expenses in its books of
accounts. The preliminary expenses can be written off fully in its year of occurrence
as per the assumptions and estimates of the Management. Which is very much in
Page 10 of 51
accordance with the manner so required and give true and fair view in conformity
with the accounting principles generally accepted in India.
viii) The Company sold its entire stock within the financial year 2017-18 and had a nil
or zero stock or inventory as on 3 1.03.2018 does not necessarily aspires any
wrong doing. The same point was raised by the Noticee during the course of the
audit with the Management. The explanations provided was that the Company is
in the fabric business for the last 2-3 years and inspite of the experience was
unable to generate enough margins to keep the business afloat and as such is in
the process of winding up the said business and look for new ventures and
avenues. The effect of which could also been seen from the fact that they started
investing in other companies which was also discussed with the Management.
ix) The Noticees including all their family members directly or indirectly have never
ever indulged in trading or buying and selling the shares of the Company at any
point of time. Therefore, the question of creating false and misleading appearance
and manipulation of price does not arise. A serious charge like fraud cannot be
established on the basis of these tenuous and farfetched observations.
Consideration of submissions and findings:
8. I have considered the allegations in the SCNs, replies received, submissions made
by the Noticees during the personal hearing granted to them and in the written
submissions filed by them. The relevant extract of provisions of law violation of which
have been alleged in the SCNs, are as follows:
Relevant extract of the provisions of SEBI Act, 1992:
“Functions of Board.
11. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to protect the
interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the
securities market, by such measures as it thinks fit.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the measurements referred
to therein may provide for-
………………………….
(i) calling for information from, undertaking inspection, conducting inquiries and audits of the
stock exchanges, mutual funds, other persons associated with the securities market,
intermediaries and self-regulatory organisations in the securities market;
(ia) calling for information and records from any person including any bank or any other authority
or board or corporation established or constituted by or under any Central or State Act which,
Page 11 of 51
in the opinion of the Board, shall be relevant to any investigation or inquiry by the Board in
respect of any transaction in securities;
………………………………………..
Prohibition of manipulative and deceptive devices, insider trading and substantial
acquisition of securities or control.
12A. No person shall directly or indirectly-

(a) use or employ, in connection with the issue, purchase or sale of any securities listed or proposed
to be listed on a recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made
thereunder;
(b) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with issue or dealing in securities
which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange;
(c) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or
deceit upon any person, in connection with the issue, dealing in securities which are listed or
proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange, in contravention of the provisions of this
Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder;
…………………………………………………..
Offences by companies.
27. (1) Where an offence has been committed by a company, every person who at the time
the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the Company for the
conduct of the business of the Company, as well as the Company, shall be deemed to be
guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any
punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act
has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with
the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the Company, such director, manager, secretary or other
officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section,- (a) “company” means any
body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals;
and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm……………….
Relevant extract of provisions of SCRA, 1956:
“…………Conditions for listing.

21. Where securities are listed on the application of any person in any recognized stock
exchange, such person shall comply with the conditions of the listing agreement with that
stock exchange……………….”
Relevant extract of the provisions of PFUTP Regulations, 2003:
“…………3. Prohibition of certain dealings in securities

No person shall directly or indirectly—
(a) ……..;
(b) use or employ, in connection with issue, purchase or sale of any security listed or
proposed to be listed in a recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or deceptive device
Page 12 of 51
or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules or the regulations made
there under;
(c) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with dealing in or issue
of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange;
(d) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as
fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with any dealing in or issue of securities which
are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange in contravention of the
provisions of the Act or the rules and the regulations made there under.
4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 3, no person shall indulge in a

fraudulent or an unfair trade practice in securities
(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice if it
involves fraud and may include all or any of the following, namely:-
………………………………………………..
(a) indulging in an act which creates false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities
market;
…………………………………………………………………………..
(e) any act or omission amounting to manipulation of the price of a security;
(f) publishing or causing to publish or reporting or causing to report by a person dealing in
securities any information relating to securities,
including financial results, financial statements, mergers and acquisitions,
regulatory approvals, which is not true or which he does not believe to be true prior to
or in the course of dealing in securities;
…..
(r) planting false or misleading news which may induce sale or purchase of securities.
…………………………………….”
Relevant extract of the provisions of LODR Regulations, 2015 as existed at the relevant
time are provided as under:
“………Principles governing disclosures and obligations.
4.(1) The listed entity which has listed securities shall make disclosures and abide by its
obligations under these regulations, in accordance with the following principles:
(a) Information shall be prepared and disclosed in accordance with applicable
standards of accounting and financial disclosure.
(b) The listed entity shall implement the prescribed accounting standards in letter and
spirit in the preparation of financial statements taking into consideration the interest
of all stakeholders and shall also ensure that the annual audit is conducted by an
independent, competent and qualified auditor.
(c) The listed entity shall refrain from misrepresentation and ensure that the
information provided to recognised stock exchange(s) and investors is not misleading.
(d) …..........................................
(e) The listed entity shall ensure that disseminations made under provisions of these
regulations and circulars made thereunder, are adequate, accurate, explicit, timely and
presented in a simple language.
(f) ………………………………………………..
(g) The listed entity shall abide by all the provisions of the applicable laws including
the securities laws and also such other guidelines as may be issued from time to time
by the Board and the recognised stock exchange(s) in this regard and as may be
applicable.
Page 13 of 51
(2) The listed entity which has listed its specified securities shall comply with the
corporate governance provisions as specified in chapter IV which shall be implemented
in a manner so as to achieve the objectives of the principles as mentioned below.
(c) Equitable treatment: The listed entity shall ensure equitable treatment of all
shareholders, including minority and foreign shareholders, in the following manner:
…
(iv)The listed entity shall devise a framework to avoid insider trading and abusive self-
dealing.
……
(f) Responsibilities of the board of directors:
The board of directors of the listed entity shall have the following responsibilities:
…….
(ii) Key functions of the board of directors-
(1) Reviewing and guiding corporate strategy, major plans of action, risk policy, annual
budgets and business plans, setting performance objectives, monitoring
implementation and corporate performance, and overseeing major capital
expenditures, acquisitions and divestments.
………………………………
(6) Monitoring and managing potential conflicts of interest of management, members of
the board of directors and shareholders, including misuse of corporate assets and
abuse in related party transactions.
(7) Ensuring the integrity of the listed entity’s accounting and financial
reporting systems, including the independent audit, and that appropriate systems
of control are in place, in particular, systems for risk management, financial and
operational control, and compliance with the law and relevant standards.
…
(iii) Other responsibilities:
The board of directors shall provide strategic guidance to the listed entity, ensure
effective monitoring of the management and shall be accountable to the listed entity
and the shareholders.
….
(3) Members of the board of directors shall act on a fully informed basis, in good
faith, with due diligence and care, and in the best interest of the listed entity and the
shareholders.
………………………………………………………………
(6) The board of directors shall maintain high ethical standards and shall take into account
the interests of stakeholders.
…..
(12) Members of the board of directors shall be able to commit themselves
effectively to their responsibilities.”
…..
Compliance Officer and his Obligations.
6.(1) A listed entity shall appoint a qualified company secretary as the compliance officer.
Preservation of documents.
9. The listed entity shall have a policy for preservation of documents, approved by its
board of directors, classifying them in at least two categories as follows-
(a)documents whose preservation shall be permanent in nature;
(b)documents with preservation period of not less than eight years after completion of
the relevant transactions:
Provided that the listed entity may keep documents specified in clauses(a) and (b) in
electronic mode.
Board of Directors.
17(1) The composition of board of directors of the listed entity shall be as follows:
Page 14 of 51
board of directors shall have an optimum combination of executive and non-executive

directors with at least one woman director and not less than fifty percent of the board
of directors shall comprise of non-executive directors;
where the chairperson of the board of directors is a non-executive director, at least one-
third of the board of directors shall comprise of independent directors and where the
listed entity does not have a regular non-executive chairperson, at least half of the
board of directors shall comprise of independent directors:
Provided that where the regular non-executive chairperson is a promoter of the listed
entity or is related to any promoter or person occupying management positions
at the level of board of director or at one level below the board of directors, at
least half of the board of directors of the listed entity shall consist of independent
directors.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, the expression “related to any
promoter" shall have the following meaning: (i) if the promoter is a listed entity, its
directors other than the independent directors, its employees or its nominees shall
be deemed to be related to it;(ii) if the promoter is an unlisted entity, its directors, its
employees or its nominees shall be deemed to be related to it.
17(8) The chief executive officer and the chief financial officer shall provide the
compliance certificate to the board of directors as specified in Part B of Schedule II.
…………………………………
SCHEDULE II - PART B: COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

[See Regulation 17(8)]
The following compliance certificate shall be furnished by chief executive officer and
chief financial officer:
A. They have reviewed financial statements and the cash flow statement for the year
and that to the best of their knowledge and belief:
(1) these statements do not contain any materially untrue statement or omit any
material fact or contain statements that might be misleading;
(2) these statements together present a true and fair view of the listed entity’s affairs
and are in compliance with existing accounting standards, applicable laws
and regulations.
B. There are, to the best of their knowledge and belief, no transactions entered into
by the listed entity during the year which are fraudulent, illegal or violative of the
listed entity’s code of conduct.
C. They accept responsibility for establishing and maintaining internal controls
for financial reporting and that they have evaluated the effectiveness of internal
control systems of the listed entity pertaining to financial reporting and they have
disclosed to the auditors and the audit committee, deficiencies in the design or
operation of such internal controls, if any, of which they are aware and the
steps they have taken or propose to take to rectify these deficiencies.
D. They have indicated to the auditors and the Audit committee
(1) significant changes in internal control over financial reporting during the year;
(2) significant changes in accounting policies during the year and that the same have
been disclosed in the notes to the financial statements; and
(3) instances of significant fraud of which they have become aware and the
involvement therein, if any, of the management or an employee having a
significant role in the listed entity’s internal control system over financial
reporting.
……………………………………………….
Risk Management Committee.
21.(1) The board of directors shall constitute a Risk Management Committee.
Page 15 of 51
(2) The majority of members of Risk Management Committee shall consist of

members of the board of directors and in case of a listed entity having
outstanding SR equity shares, at least two thirds of the Risk Management
Committee shall comprise of independent directors.
(3) The Chairperson of the Risk management committee shall be a member of the
board of directors and senior executives of the listed entity may be members of
the committee.
(3A) The risk management committee shall meet at least once in a year.
Financial results.
33(2) The approval and authentication of the financial results shall be done by listed
entity in the following manner:
(a) The quarterly financial results submitted shall be approved by the board of
directors:
Provided that while placing the financial results before the board of directors, the
chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the listed entity shall certify
that the financial results do not contain any false or misleading statement or
figures and do not omit any material fact which may make the statements or
figures contained therein misleading
……………………………………….
Voting by Shareholders
44.(3) The listed entity shall submit to the stock exchange, within forty eight hours of
conclusion of its General Meeting, details regarding the voting results in the format
specified by the Board.
Website
46(1) The listed entity shall maintain a functional website containing the basic
information about the listed entity.
(2) The listed entity shall disseminate the following information on its website:
(k) contact information of the designated officials of the listed entity who are
responsible for assisting and handling investor grievances;
Accounting Standards.
48. The listed entity shall comply with all the applicable and notified
Accounting Standards from time to time.
9. Before proceeding with the merit of the matter, it will be relevant to discuss the
background of the present proceedings. SEBI received a letter no. F. No. 03/73/2017-
CL-II dated June 9, 2017 from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (hereinafter referred
to as “MCA”) vide which MCA had annexed a list of 331 shell companies for initiating
necessary action as per SEBI laws and regulations. MCA had also annexed the letter
of Serious Fraud Investigation Office, dated May 23, 2017 which contained the list of
shell companies along with their inputs. In respect of listed shell companies including
DIDL, vide its letter dated August 7, 2017, SEBI advised stock exchanges to place
trading restrictions on promoters/directors so that they do not exit these listed
companies. SEBI vide said letter dated August 7, 2017 also advised the Exchanges
to place the scrip in the trade-to-trade category with limitation on the frequency of
trade and imposed a limitation on the buyer by way of 200% deposit on the trade
value, so as to alert them on trading in the scrip. Thereafter, BSE vide notice dated
Page 16 of 51
August 7, 2017 issued to all its market participants, initiated actions envisaged in the
SEBI letter dated August 7, 2017 in respect of all the listed companies, as identified
by MCA and communicated by SEBI, with effect from August 8, 2017. On August 09,
2017, SEBI further advised the Exchanges to submit a report after seeking auditor's
certificate, from all such listed companies, providing the status of certain aspects of
these companies like compliance with Companies Act, whether company is a going
concern and its business model, status of compliance with listing requirements, etc.
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letters/notice dated August 7, 2017 issued by SEBI and
BSE, the Company filed an appeal bearing no. 211 of 2017 before the Hon’ble
Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “SAT”). The Hon’ble
SAT vide order dated August 29, 2017 directed the following:
“..........2. As the appellant has already made a representation to BSE

against the said ex-parte order dated 7th August, 2017, with a copy to SEBI,
Counsel for the appellant on instruction seeks to withdraw the appeal with
liberty to pursue the representation filed before SEBI. Accordingly, we
permit the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue the
representation pending before SEBI.
3. SEBI is directed to dispose of the representation made by the appellant

as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks
from today. It is made clear that passing of any order on the representation
made by the appellant would not preclude SEBI from further investing the
matter and initiate appropriate proceedings if deemed fit....”
On the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble SAT, DIDL submitted its representation
to SEBI and an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to DIDL on September
14, 2017. DIDL in the said hearing was asked to submit certain necessary
documents/records for its consideration. Thereafter, the interim order and
confirmatory order were passed.
11. Based on the direction given by the SEBI, vide interim order dated September 26,
2017, BSE appointed BDO India LLP for conducting forensic audit of DIDL. The FAR
was forwarded to SEBI vide BSE’s letter dated July 03, 2019. On receipt of the FAR,
SEBI carried out an investigation in the matter.
Page 17 of 51
12. Before proceeding with the matter, I note that Noticee no. 7 has submitted that he
was not a director of DIDL. He has submitted that his educational qualification is 9 th
standard passed and that he has never been to Kolkata (where the registered office
of DIDL was) in his life and that he is working as a courier boy for delivering products
for Amazon. He has submitted copy of statement of his bank account held with State
Bank of India to show that there is no substantial balance or credit therein. In this
regard, I note that Noticee no. 7 has been alleged to be an Independent Director of
DIDL based on the fact that he had been disclosed to be so in the Annual Reports of
the Company pertaining to all three years of the Investigation Period. I note that on
conducting a search on the MCA 21 portal by SEBI, with respect to Mr. Kishore
Vasant Hajare, it is observed that there is a director with the name Mr. Kishore Vasant
Hajare having DIN 07022019. It is further observed from the portal that, no company
exists wherein Mr. Kishore Vasant Hajare having DIN 07022019 is a director. It shows
that he is neither a director in DIDL or any other company. I find that Noticee no.7
has submitted proof of his educational qualification (9th standard passed) and I note
that he had also been declared to be a member of the Audit Committee of DIDL and
that he did not have the qualification required to be a member of the Audit Committee
in a listed company, i.e. financially literate. Moreover, his bank statements also do
not show any remittance of any amount akin to sitting fees etc. In view of the same,
I find that there is not enough material to establish that Noticee no. 7 was an
Independent Director of DIDL during the Investigation Period.
13. Coming to the merits of the matter, I observe that, in the SCN I & II, the allegations
against the Noticee No. 2 to 8 flows from the allegations against Noticee No.1.
Noticee Nos. 2 to 7 have been charged in their capacity as directors/ CFO of Noticee
No.1 and Noticee Nos. 8 has been charged as the statutory auditor of Noticee No.1.
The SCN I alleges that the Noticee Nos. 1 to 7 have failed to present true and fair
financial statements of the Company, executed transactions which are non-genuine
in nature thereby resulting in misrepresentation of the accounts/financial statements
and misuse of account/funds of the Company during the investigation period and that
such acts were found to be fraudulent in nature as they induced the investors to trade
in the securities of the Company and had the potential to mislead the investors. SCN
Page 18 of 51
I also alleged that the directors/ CFO of the Company (Noticee Nos. 2 to 7) have
failed to exercise duty of care, by misrepresenting the financial statements /misusing
the funds of the Company. The SCN II alleges that Noticee No. 8 who was the
statutory auditor of the Company for the relevant period, has been negligent in
performance of its duties as it had not carried out proper due diligence in its audit
report.
14. I note that allegations made in the SCN I against DIDL can be categorized as under:
A. Misrepresentation including of financials and misuse of funds/books of

accounts in violation of LODR Regulations, 2015;
B. Non furnishing of information/Non-cooperation by the Company with the
forensic auditor;
C. Other violations of LODR Regulations, 2015;
D. Violation of PFUTP Regulations, 2003.
In the following paras, all these have been dealt with my findings thereon.
15. Misrepresentation including of financials and misuse of funds/books of

accounts:
15.1. Discrepancy in the figure relating to Loans and Advances:
(a) The SCN I, based on the FAR alleges that in FY 2017-18 there has been a
net increase in loans and advances, amounting to Rs 42.45 lakhs, given by
DIDL. However, as per the balance sheet of the Company for Financial Year
(FY) 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, there has been a net decrease in loans and
advances, amounting to Rs 117 lakhs, given by the Company thereby
resulting in misrepresentation in the cash flow statement to the extent of Rs
159.45 lakhs. Further, SCN I alleges that DIDL has not shown breakup of
current assets and current liabilities like changes in inventory, operating
receivables and payables under working capital changes in its cash flow
Page 19 of 51
statement for the FY 2015-16 and 2016-17. Thus, the Company has not
prepared its cash flow statement in accordance with AS-3.
(b) In response to the same, the Company has submitted that the actual
difference from Balance Sheet figures and Cash Flow Statement is Rupees
11,07,226/-. The above difference is on account of interest receivable net
of taxes i.e. Rupees 11,07,226/- and that Interest Receivable (Rs.
11,48,945) and Tax Deducted At Source (Rs. 41719) is included in Long
Term Loans and Advances and the same has not been reflected separately
in the Cash Flow Statements but is included in Changes in Long Term
Loans and Advances.
(c) The Company has claimed that it had grouped interest receivable as a long
term loan, which implies that it was not receiving any interest, i.e. the
instrument which was supposed to yield the interest is not yielding any
interest and thus it was being categorised as a loan, however, I find that
there is no corresponding entry for bad loan in the profit and loss accounts.
I note that interest receivable has to be accounted for in the Profit and Loss
Account as an income using accrual method whereas long term loans are
loans for which accounting has to be done under separate methodology.
Based on the relevant loan agreements, the interest income, whether
receivable quarterly, monthly or annually has to be accounted for in the
income of a company. Further, it is not clear as to how the Company is
accounting for TDS under Loan and Advances. I also note from the FAR
that DIDL has not shown breakup of current assets and current liabilities
like changes in inventory, operating receivables and payables under
working capital changes in its cash flow statement for the FY 2015-16 and
2016-17. Therefore, I agree with the observation of FAR that there is a
discrepancy between the figures for loans and advances as per the balance
sheet of the Company for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 and the cash flow
statement of the Company to the extent of Rs 159.45 lakhs. Further, I agree
with the observation in the FAR that the Company has not followed
applicable Accounting Standard while disclosing its financial statements for
Page 20 of 51
FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 and is in violation of Regulations 4(1)(a),(b), (c)

read with Regulation 33 (2) and 48 of the LODR Regulations, 2015.
15.2. Company not deploying appropriate investment selection process and not
utilising shareholders’ fund diligently:
(a) The SCN I alleges that the Company has made loans and advances (both
short term and long term) amounting to Rs 550.31 lakhs, Rs 220.5 lakhs
and Rs 698.02 lakhs in FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18,
respectively and the Company has also made investments amounting to
Rs. 757.57 lakhs, Rs 405.65 lakhs and Rs 1,137.27 lakhs in FY 2015-16,
FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, respectively. However, the Company has
earned only miniscule income of Rs 48.81 lakhs, Rs 22.14 lakhs and 11.48
lakhs on these investments in FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18,
respectively, thereby generating a return of 3.73%, 3.53% and 0.62% in all
the aforesaid three financial years. Thus, the SCN I alleges that the
Company has not deployed appropriate investment selection process and
has also not utilised shareholders’ fund diligently.
(b) In response to the same, the Company has denied the figures in the FAR
and has stated that it had generated return of 9% p.a. each in the three
financial years covered by the FAR.
(c) In my view, there appears to be a difference of observation between the

FAR and the reply of Noticee no.1 related to the returns which the Company
was getting from the investments it had made during the Investigation
Period. Be that as it may, I note that the FAR has not doubted the veracity
of the investments, it has only raised issues related to the quality of such
investments. A company is free to invest its surplus fund temporarily or long
term depending on its future requirement and whether to invest in fixed
deposit or gilt or high yielding securities will be based on its requirements
or commercial wisdom. I also note that the FAR is silent as to whether there
Page 21 of 51
is any violation of the securities law with regard to the purported low returns
received by DIDL on its investments or whether it was not prudent and/or
not on arm’s length basis. In view of the same I do not find any violation by
the Company with reference to the above mentioned allegation.
15.3. Discrepancy between trade receivable and revenue:
(a) The SCN I, based on the FAR notes that there is an increase in the trade
receivables of the Company from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18 from Rs.
302.99 crores to Rs. 439.05 crores (36.89%). However, the revenue of the
Company has declined from Rs 4,815.72 crores to Rs 1,368.32 crores
(41.35%) from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18. The sales of the Company are
decreasing but its debtors are increasing thereby raising concerns about
the genuineness of these debtors.
(b) In reply to the same the Company has submitted that it is into trading of
various Garments which as per industry standard depends on credit
facilities. Comparative with the turnover of the Company in the trading and
the nature of business the Company into at any given time in this business,
the debtor position has not 6-10 % over the turn over at any point of time
and that the debtors have been fully recovered in the FY 2018-19.
(c) I note that the Company has not submitted details of the repayment of
debt in support of its submissions. I also note that the FAR has also
pointed out that the Company had not submitted information and details
regarding the trade receivables. Some of the observations of the FAR
regarding the same are given below:
- “With regard to trade receivables of Rs. 3.03 crore reported in the

consolidated financial statements of FY 2015-16, DIDL in its reply dated
September 20, 2017 has referred to ‘Annexure-4’. However, upon perusal of
documents submitted by the company along with its reply dated September 20,
2017 there is no ‘Annexure-4’. Thus, the company had failed to provide full
breakup party wise, back up documents underlying the transactions and their
link to the business. With respect to the observation mentioned in above
paragraph as regards to trade receivable of Rs.3.03 crores as on March 31, 2016
Page 22 of 51
(FY 2015-16), DIDL during personal hearing has submitted ‘Annexure- 4’

referred in its reply dated September 20, 2017. On perusal of the same, it is
observed that DIDL provided ledger account of A. R Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. from April
2015 to June 2016 and Sanskar Goods Pvt. Ltd. for the FY 2015-17 along with
relevant bank account statement of DIDL i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH)A/c
No. 62338284318 and few sales invoices pertaining to FY 2015-16. As per the
ledgers, an amount of Rs.1.14 crores and Rs.1.89 crores (which comes to Rs.3.03
crore) is receivable from A. R Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. and Sanskar Goods Pvt. Ltd.,
respectively. On comparing the above ledgers with relevant bank account
statement of DIDL, it appears that amount receivable from A. R Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.
and Sanskar Goods Pvt. Ltd. was received during FY 2016-17. Further, it is noted
that DIDL vide letter January 24, 2018 also provided the ledger account and bank
statement of A. R Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. as a third-party verifiable documents. SEBI also
note that the bank statement does not have the counter party details (i.e. party
from whom the amount is received) and DIDL had not provided any other
supporting documents such as stamped agreements, contract notes, VAT
payment receipt or any other third-party verifiable documents to establish the
genuineness of the underlying transactions. Thus, SEBI note that DIDL had failed
to submit any plausible explanation/documents in respect of trade receivable of
Rs.3.03 crores as on March 31, 2016 (FY 2015-16) as mentioned in the interim
order.”
- “During the course of hearing, the company was advised to provide the top 10
contributors for sales/purchases by value with the backup documents. On perusal
of the same, it is observed that DIDL provided ledger account of A. R Vyapar Pvt.
Ltd., Sanskar Goods Pvt. Ltd., Varnika Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Dhanvarsha Properties
Pvt. Ltd. and Panghat Textiles Pvt. Ltd. for FY 2015-16 along with few sales
invoices. The above 5 debtors have contributed Rs.19.39 crores out of total sales
of Rs. 47.67 crore in FY 2015-16 (Consolidated). Further, DIDL provided ledger of
Cainhill Development Pvt. Ltd. for FY 2015-16 along with few purchase invoices.
From the above table, it is observed that there are 7 parties, who have contributed
Rs. 23.11 crore sales made by DIDL during FY 16-17. DIDL has provided ledger
account of DIDL in their debtor's books as third-party verifiable documents.
Further, DIDL has also submitted bank statement of only 3 parties (i.e. Venus,
Vyapar a Tripurari) highlighting the amounts received from these 3 parties. I
noticed that funds have moved, however, the counter party details are not
available in bank statement of DIDL and Debtors. I also noticed that DIDL had
not provided any other supporting documents such as stamped agreements,
contract notes, VAT payment receipt or any other third-party verifiable
documents to establish the genuineness of the underlying transactions.”
- “On reviewing financial statements and cash flow statements for the financial
year 2017-18, 16-17 and 15-16 the trade receivables showed increasing
movement for continuous 2 financial year from FY 16-17 to FY 17-18 although the
revenue is showing drastic decreasing trend during said period which is unusual.
Considering above analysis and fact that the Company has failed to provide
necessary information, it creates suspicion about genuineness of receivables as
shown in financial statements of the Company.”
(d) I note that during the present proceedings before me, the Company has
not produced any information or records such as authenticated Loan
Agreements or payment receipts or proof that the loans have been
repayed to the Company by the purchaser of the goods. In view of the
same, I am inclined to agree with the observation in the FAR on this issue
Page 23 of 51
and I find that the Company is in violation of Regulation 4(1)(a),(b), (c)

read with Regulation 33 (2) and Regulation 48 of the LODR Regulations,
2015 pertaining to its financial statements for FYs 2015-16 to 2017-18.
15.4. DIDL had made investments in companies with Nil revenue:
(a) The SCN I alleges that DIDL has made huge amount of investments in
companies with either nil revenue, declining revenues, having losses or
having no tangible or intangible assets and having nil employee benefit cost.
(b) In response to the allegation, the Company has stated that the Management
took the best call to protect the interest of the Company and also the funds.
Even today there were no default in any Loan and advances.
(c) In this regard, I note that the FAR gives a few examples. The first example
is that of Yogmaya Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. (YTPL) wherein the Company had
invested 120 lakhs. The FAR states that the entity is not having any revenue
from operations during FY 2016-17 & FY2015-16 and the employee benefit
cost of YTPL is NIL which is unusual and that the entity has suffered
consecutive losses during last 3 financial years. The FAR further states that
this entity has no tangible or intangible assets in FY 2015-16 and FY 2014-
15 and it had invested its funds in other companies approx. 99.99% of its
net worth, however having no returns from these investments during FY
2016-17 & FY 2017-18. The FAR also noted that investments made by DIDL
in other companies during FY 2017-18 like, Blackberry Sarees Private
Limited, Gemzar Enterprises Private Limited, Harilaxmi Real Estate Private
Limited, Mentax lmpex Private Limited have exactly the same address as
YTPL that is “2nd Floor, Plot - 599, Kapadia Chambers Jagannath
Shankarsheth Marg, Chira Bazar, Kalbadevi Mumbai City MH 400002 IN.”
The FAR also notes that DIDL has paid Rs. 119.85 as securities premium
for the shares of YTPL, which is relatively very high considering the financial
position of the entity. The FAR further states that DIDL has invested Rs. 83
Page 24 of 51
lakhs in unquoted equity shares of Lifewood Cotton Industries Private

Limited (LCIPT) during FY 2017-18. It holds 830 shares of face value Rs.10
and this entity's revenue from operations has been reduced from 1.65
Lakhs to 1.55 Lakhs during FY 2016-17 from FY 2015-16 and it suffered
loss in FY 2017-18.Further, this entity has no tangible or intangible assets
in FY 2016-17 and FY 2015-16 which is unusual. Based on the above, the
FAR concludes that the due diligence process deployed by the Company
before investing shareholder's funds in the unquoted shares of other entities
was suspicious and such investment activities are detrimental to the
interest of the minority shareholders.
(d) From the above, I find that the Company’s investments in the above-
mentioned few entities prima facie do not appear to be prudent. Moreover,
the facts such as the Company having invested in several entitles with the
same address, the Company having paid a premium for unlisted shares of
a company with no revenue from operations or no assets, indicate that the
observation in the FAR about the suspicious nature of these purported
investments are correct. I also note that although the Company has stated
in its reply that it received good returns from these investments but no
details of return such as dividends or capital gains etc., nor documents
supporting this claim has been placed on record. In view of the same, I am
inclined to agree with the observations of FAR in this regard and find that
the Company made suspicious investments in companies having Nil
revenue and assets etc. and had not disclosed the true nature of these
investments in its financials and thereby the Company has violated
Regulations 4(1)(a),(b), (c),(e) (g), 4(2) (c) read with Regulations 33 (2) and
48 of the LODR Regulations, 2015.
15.5. DIDL had nil closing stock as on March 31, 2018:
(a) The SCN I alleges that the closing stock of DIDL as at March 31, 2018 is
shown as NIL and the Company being in textile business and having nil
Page 25 of 51
inventory at any point of time raises concern over future operations of the
company.
(b) In response to this the Company has submitted that GST was implemented
with effect from 01, July 2017 and the stocks lying with the Company were
without GST and it was easy for it to sell the entire stock on or before 30th
June, 2017 as there were buyers. Before it could start fresh trading activities
BSE declared the Company as a Shell Company on August 2017, hence,
nobody was interested to do business with the Company hence, the
inventory position which was nil continued till 31.03.2019. With a lot of odds,
the Company for the FY 2018-19 and 19-20 restarted it's trading businesses
and made the turnover of Rs. 1356.83 & Rs. 52.68, respectively.
(c) I note that from the FAR or the SCN I it is not clear as to which provision of
the securities law has been violated by the Company with respect to it
having nil stock. There also appears to be no allegation in the FAR or the
SCN I that the Company has misrepresented the fact that it had NIL stock
in any of its disclosures. In view of the same, I do not find any violation by
the Company in this regard.
15.6. Allegation related to computation of preliminary expenses:
(a) The SCN I alleges that the amount of preliminary expenses charged by the
Company to the profit and loss account (i.e. Rs 6.31 lakhs) is not correct as
the correct amount should be Rs 6.12 lakhs (i.e. 6.17-0.05).
(b) The Company has submitted that preliminary expenses written off by the
Company is on the basis of the estimates of the management. The figures
were decided keeping in mind the utility of the expenses done by the
management at that point of time and the accounting standard.
(c) I note that the calculation provided in the FAR is based on the following
finding in the FAR:
Page 26 of 51
“….we have noted discrepancy in amount written off in Profit and Loss account
that as per difference in preliminary expense shown in balance sheet of FY
2016-17 & FY 2015-16. Amount charged to profit & loss account should have
been INR 6.12 lakhs (i.e. 6.17-0.05) instead of INR 6.31 lakhs for the year
2016-17.”
(d) I note that the Company has not explained the reason for the above-
mentioned discrepancy and made a general submission that the figures of
preliminary expense has to be based on the estimates of the management.
I note that the Company has not explained the discrepancy between the
figures related to preliminary expenses as stated in DIDL’s profit and loss
account and balance sheet for the year 2016-17. In view of the same, I
agree with the findings of FAR in this regard and I find that the Company
has violated Regulations 4(1)(a),(b), (c) read with Regulations 33 (2) and
48 of the LODR Regulations, 2015.
15.7. The Company has transferred funds to 8 entities on the same day of receipt
from other entities:
(a) The SCN I alleges that the fact that the Company has transferred funds
amounting to Rs. 734 lakhs to 8 different parties, on the same day of receipt
of funds amounting to Rs. 733.9 lakhs, raises concern about the genuineness
of business transactions undertaken by the Company. Thus, DIDL is acting
as a conduit for diversion of funds and has led to misrepresentation of books
of accounts/misuse of funds as apparently no underlying business
transactions have taken place.
(b) In this regard the Company has submitted that it received money from
debtors which it transferred to its creditors.
(c) In this regard the FAR observes as follows:
“We noted that 14 bank receipts from 11 different parties, amounting to INR 733.90
lakhs were transferred to 8 different parties, amounting to INR 734 lakhs, on the
same day of receipt.
…..
Page 27 of 51
During the course of hearing company was advised to submit the bank statement
for the financial year 2016-17, on analysis of bank statement of A!c.no.
62338284318 State Bank of Hyderabad, Brabourne Road, Kolkata, it is observed
that there are entries of funds received by DIDL from single/multiple entities and
almost the same amount transferred to other entity/ entities on the same/next day.
This pattern of back-to-back transactions leads to suspicion that the books of
accounts may have been used to facilitate accommodation transactions.
….
With respect to the observation mentioned in above paragraph as regards to Funds
received by DIDL from single/multiple entity(ies) and transferring of almost same
amount to other entity(ies) on same or next day, it appears that DIDL during the
hearing submitted a statement of payment & receipt summary for the Financial
Year (FY) 2016-17 along with the copy of certain sales invoices of FY 2016-17 and
purchase invoices of FY 2015-16. DIDL in receipts & payments summary statement
given the details such as receipt of amount(s) from sale of investments, loan refund,
debtor and payment to creditor(s). From the receipt & payment summary
statement, it appears that out of Rs. 5.29 crores other loans & advances (shown
in FY 2015-16), DIDL during FY 2016-17 received Rs.3.67 crores. However, DIDL
has not provided the relevant bank account statement highlighting the respective
amounts, other supporting documents such as stamped agreements, contract
notes, VAT payment receipt or any other third-party verifiable documents to
establish the genuineness of the underlying transactions. Further, SEBI vide email
dated July 23, 2018 gathered bank account statement for account number
62338284318 of DIDL from the banker i.e. SBI/SBH. Upon perusal of the bank
account statement received from SBI/SBH, SEBI tried to match the figures shown
in the receipt and payment summary submitted by DIDL with the bank account
statement received from the banker. However, it is noticed that since the bank
account statement gathered from banker does not have the details of counter
parties, the genuineness of the amounts cannot be ascertained. In view of this, the
prima facie finding that the pattern of back-to-back transactions leading to
suspicion that the books of accounts may have been used to facilitate
accommodation transactions has not been contradicted with sufficient
documentary evidence.”
(d) I note that in response to the above-mentioned detailed observations in the

FAR, the Company has only made a general submission that money received
from debtors were paid to creditors. The Company has not produced any
supporting documents which provide details as to the loan agreements or
purchase receipts or payments to be made to any supplier or whether the
payment was towards any raw material or services received, between DIDL
and these debtors or creditors. In view of the same, I am inclined to agree
with the findings of FAR in this regard and find that DIDL has disclosed false
transactions in its books of accounts and therefore, violated Regulations
4(1)(a),(b), (c),(e) (g), 4(2) (c) read with Regulation 33 (2) and 48 of the LODR
Regulations, 2015.
15.8. Allegations related to the premises of the Company:

Page 28 of 51
(a) The SCN I based on the FAR alleges that the Company is operating from a
small room and having only two computer systems and the fact that several
other companies were also operating from the same registered office
address as DIDL, raises doubts over the operations of the Company.
(b) I note that there seems to be no express bar in the Companies Act, 2013
against companies sharing offices with similar addresses in the same
premises with some demarcations for space. However, some regulated
entities have to fulfil requirement of certain minimum infrastructure. The FAR
has not brought out any details to show that there was a violation of
provisions of securities law or provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 with
respect to registered office by DIDL or that there was not adequate space at
the premises. The FAR also does not make any further observations
regarding the same. In view of the same, the observation in this regard in the
FAR is not established.
16. From the discussion in paras 15 above, I find that:

i) There is discrepancy in the cash flow statement disclosed by the Company
for FY 2017-18 to the extent of Rs 159.45 lakhs. Further, DIDL had not
shown breakup of current assets and current liabilities like changes in
inventory, operating receivables and payables under working capital,
changes in its cash flow statement for the FY 2015-16 and 2016-17.
ii) There is discrepancy in the figures shown by the Company for trade
receivables of the Company pertaining to FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18.
iii) The Company has not disclosed the true nature of investments in
companies with Nil revenue in its financials.
iv) The amount of preliminary expenses charged by the Company to the profit
and loss account is not correct.
v) DIDL has disclosed suspicious transactions in its books of accounts with
respect to transferring of funds amounting to Rs 734 lakhs to 8 different
parties, on the same day of receipt of funds amounting to Rs 733.9 lakhs.
Page 29 of 51
Thus, I find that DIDL failed to represent a true and fair view of the state of affairs of
the Company in compliance with the mandate contained in Accounting Standards
and thereby violated provisions of Regulation 48 of LODR Regulations.
17. I note that the SCN I inter alia alleges that DIDL has violated Regulation
4(1)(a),(b),(c),(e),(g), 4(2)(f)(ii)(1),(6)(7), 4(2)(f)(iii)(3),(6)(12), Regulation 33(2)(a),
Regulation 48 and Regulation 17(8) read with Part B of Schedule II of the LODR
Regulations, 2015. From the discussions above, I find that since the financial
statements of DIDL pertaining to the investigation period were not as per the
Accounting Standard as discussed in the previous paras, therefore, the Company
has violated Regulation 48 of LODR Regulations, 2015 which mandates that the
listed entity shall comply with all the applicable and notified Accounting Standards
from time to time. Regarding the violations of Regulation 4, I note that Regulation 4
of LODR Regulations, 2015 lays down principles governing disclosures and
obligations of the listed entity under the LODR Regulations, 2015. Specific clauses
of Regulation 4(1), the violation of which has been alleged in the SCNs, provides that
the listed entity which has listed securities shall make disclosures and abide by its
obligations under these regulations, in accordance with the following principles:
(a) Information shall be prepared and disclosed in accordance with applicable
standards of accounting and financial disclosure.
(b) The listed entity shall implement the prescribed accounting standards in
letter and spirit in the preparation of financial statements taking into
consideration the interest of all stakeholders and shall also ensure that the
annual audit is conducted by an independent, competent and qualified
auditor.
(c) The listed entity shall refrain from misrepresentation and ensure that the
information provided to recognised stock exchange(s) and investors is not
misleading.
(e) The listed entity shall ensure that disseminations made under provisions of
these regulations and circulars made thereunder, are adequate, accurate,
explicit, timely and presented in a simple language.
Page 30 of 51
(g) The listed entity shall abide by all the provisions of the applicable laws
including the securities laws and also such other guidelines as may be
issued from time to time by the Board and the recognised stock exchange(s)
in this regard and as may be applicable.
18. As discussed in the para above, I find that the Company has failed to comply with
Regulation 48 of the LODR Regulations, 2015. Further, its disclosures were not in
accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid clauses of Regulation 4(1)
and hence, DIDL is also in violation of Regulation 4(1)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (g) of the
LODR Regulations, 2015. Regulation 4(2)(c) of the LODR Regulations, 2015 states
that the listed entity shall ensure equitable treatment of all shareholders, including
minority shareholders. As discussed in para 15, DIDL did not safeguard the interest
of its minority shareholders and thus violated Regulation 4(2)(c) of the LODR
Regulations, 2015. Regarding the violations of Regulation 4(2)(f)(ii) (6) and (7) and
4(2)(f)(iii) (3), (6) and (12) of the LODR Regulations, 2015 by the Company as alleged
in the SCN I, I find that Regulation 4(2)(f) enlists the responsibilities of board of
directors of listed entities. Clause (ii) of Regulation 4(2)(f) deals with key functions of
the board of directors and Clause (iii) deals with other functions of the board of
directors. Any liability arising out of the violation of these principles because of
violation of disclosure or other obligation of the listed entity under the LODR
Regulations, 2015 is of the board of directors of the listed entity. Therefore, I find that
DIDL cannot be said to be in violations of Regulation 4(2)(f)(ii) (6) and (7) and
4(2)(f)(iii) (3), (6) and (12) of the LODR Regulations, 2015 which pertain to obligations
of the board of directors. Regarding the violations of Regulation 17(8) read with Part
B of Schedule II of LODR Regulations, 2015 by Noticee no.1, as alleged in the SCN
I, I find that Regulation 17(8) mandates that the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
Financial Officer shall provide the compliance certificate to the board of directors as
specified in Part B of Schedule II. Since the said provisions pertain to Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, I find that Noticee no.1 cannot
be said be in violation of Regulation 17(8) of LODR Regulations, 2015. I also note
that Regulation 33(2)(a) provides that a listed company shall authenticate its financial
results by approval of the Board of Directors. While placing the financial results
Page 31 of 51
before the board of directors, the CFO and CEO of the listed entity have to certify
that the financial results do not contain any false or misleading statement or figures
and do not omit any material fact which may make the statements or figures
contained therein misleading. However, in terms of the Uniform Listing Agreement
read with Section 21 of the SCRA, 1956, since the financial results were not accurate,
DIDL has violated Regulation 33(2)(a) of LODR Regulations, 2015. Further, since
one of the condition which every issuer company, whose securities are listed on a
recognised stock exchange, is required to comply with is compliance with LODR
Regulations, 2015 and in the present case, DIDL has been found to be in violation of
the provisions of the LODR Regulations, 2015 as discussed above, therefore, the
Company is in violation of the condition of the listing agreement and hence, is also in
the violation of Section 21 of SCRA, 1956.
19. Non furnishing of information/Non-cooperation by the Company to the forensic auditor
19.1. The SCN I alleges that the Company has not furnished the information
sought by the forensic auditor on various instances viz. the Company
has not furnished any information/explanation with respect to the queries
raised by SEBI in the interim order and confirmatory order, Further, the
company has also not provided details with respect to type of entities to
whom loans have been provided by DIDL, bank books and bank account
statements for all the bank accounts of DIDL. I note that the Noticees
have stated that they have cooperated in the forensic audit and have
provided all the documents sought. However, I note from the FAR that
several documents sought by the forensic auditor were not provided to
them, which has hindered the audit process. In this regard, I note that
the FAR has made the following observations:
i) “We have shared the SEBI queries along with our remarks and required
information and documents vide our email dated 15th Feb 2019 and 18th June
2019. However, despite our multiple follow up vide mail dated 23th Feb 2019,
26th Feb 2019 and 27th Feb 2019 the management failed to provide
necessary explanation/information and majority of documents as sought from
the Company.”
ii) “We have requested management of DIDL to provide Bank Books of the Company
in Excel format and Bank Account Statements for all the bank account maintained
in Soft Copy format (Excel or Text Format) during review period via mail dated
Page 32 of 51
15th Feb 2019. However, the company failed to provide required documents
despite multiple mail follow up vide email dated 23th Feb 2019, 26th Feb 2019
and 27th Feb 2019.”
19.2. I note that the Noticees have been alleged to have violated Section
11(2)(i) and 11(2)(ia) of the SEBI Act, 1992. On a reading of these
Sections, I observe that Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992 lays down
the functions of SEBI, and in carrying out the said functions, SEBI is
empowered, under 11(2)(i) and 11(2)(ia) of the SEBI Act, 1992, to call
for records from intermediaries and other entities. I note that BSE was
directed to appoint a forensic auditor for carrying out forensic audit of
DIDL vide SEBI order dated November 26, 2017. Thus, the forensic audit
was being carried out pursuant to a direction of SEBI. I note that DIDL
failed to furnish information sought by the forensic auditor and thereby
violated Sections 11(2)(i) and (ia) of SEBI Act, 1992.
20. Other Violation of LODR Regulations, 2015:

20.1. The SCN I alleges that DIDL failed to appoint a qualified company
secretary during FY 2017-18 and a Compliance Officer during the
Investigation Period which is a violation of Regulation 6(1) of LODR
Regulations, 2015. In response to the same the Company has stated
that after the Company was declared as a shell company, no qualified
Company Secretary was ready to join the Company despite multiple
efforts which included issue of public notice. I am unable to accept the
said explanation by DIDL since the interim order against the Company
was issued in September 2017 and the Company did not have a
Compliance Officer since 2015-16. I note that DIDL has not denied that
it did not have a Compliance officer for the FY 2015-16 and FY 16-17
and Mr. Raj Mohta was only appointed on May 30, 2017. In view of the
said fact, I find that the Company has violated Regulation 6(1) of LODR
Regulations, 2015.
20.2. The SCN I also alleges that DIDL did not maintain a functional website,
containing the basic information about the Company, during the
Investigation Period and failed to disseminate the required information
Page 33 of 51
on its website which is a violation of Regulation 46(1) & (2) of LODR

Regulations, 2015. SCN I also alleges that DIDL failed to upload contact
information, of designated officials who are responsible for assisting and
handling investor grievances, on its website, which is a violation of
Regulation 46(2)(k) of LODR Regulations, 2015. In response to the
allegation the Company has submitted that during the relevant period it
maintained a fully functional web site and even today the site is functional
(www.dalmiaindusty.co.in) and that the Company appointed Mr. Raj
Mohta as its Compliance Officer on May 30, 2017 and the details were
there in the website. In this regard, I note that the Company has only
made a bald assertion that it was maintaining a functional website at the
relevant time as also at present. However, the Company has not
submitted any supporting document for such assertion. Further, I note
that during the present proceedings an effort was made to access the
purported website of the Company through several devices, several
times. However, the same could not be accessed and showed an error.
In view of the same, I cannot accept the submission of the Company that
it has a functional website. Consequently, I also find that DIDL failed to
upload contact information, of designated officials who are responsible
for assisting and handling investor grievances on its website. In view of
the same, I find that DIDL has violated Regulation 46(1) & (2) and
46(2)(k) of LODR Regulations, 2015.
20.3. The SCN I has also alleged that DIDL failed to maintain the minimum
number of executive directors on its board of directors during FY 2015-
16, FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18, which is a violation of Regulation 17(1)
of LODR Regulations, 2015. In this regard I note that Regulation 17(1)
of LODR Regulations, 2015 mandates not less than fifty percent of the
board of directors of a listed entity shall comprise of non-executive
directors. In response, the company has submitted that this regulation is
not applicable to the Company. I note that the Company has not
elaborated on what basis it has submitted that Regulation 17(1) of LODR
Regulations, 2015 is not applicable to it. I note that the paid up capital of
Page 34 of 51
the Company during the Investigation Period was Rs.20,24,75,000/-, i.e.

it had a paid up share capital of more than 10 crores and therefore, the
exemption granted under Regulation 15(2) of the LODR Regulations,
2015 will not apply to it. However, I note that, Regulation 17(1) of LODR
Regulations, 2015 mandates the minimum percentage of non-executive
directors on the board of a listed company and does not mandate
minimum number of executive directors in a listed entity. As discussed
in previous paras, since it has not been established that Noticee no. 7
was indeed an Independent Director of DIDL, therefore, I find that DIDL
had equal number of executive and non-executive directors in FY 2016-
17 and FY 2017-18. DIDL had more number of non -executive directors
than executive directors on its board for FY 2015-16 but in my view that
does not amount to violation of Regulation 17(1) of LODR Regulations,
2015.
20.4. The SCN I further alleges that DIDL failed to submit voting results of its
AGM/ EGM to stock exchange for the FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17,
which is a violation of Regulation 44(3) of LODR Regulations, 2015. The
Company has stated that voting results were always informed to BSE. I
am unable to accept this submission since the voting results pertaining
to DIDL for FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 are not available on the BSE
website and the Company has not produced and document to show that
the same were submitted to BSE. Therefore, I find that the Company has
violated Regulation 44(3) of LODR Regulations, 2015.
20.5. The SCN I has alleged that DIDL failed to form a risk management
committee of the board of directors of the company, which is a violation
of Regulation 21 of LODR Regulations, 2015. The Company has stated
that the said regulation does not apply to it, but has not elaborated as to
the reason for such non- applicability. As discussed above, the
exemption under Regulation 15(2) of the LODR Regulations, 2015 do
not apply to the Company. In view of the same I am unable to accept to
submission of DIDL to that extent and I find that the Company is in
violation of Regulation 21 of LODR Regulations, 2015.
Page 35 of 51
21. Violations of PFUTP Regulations, 2003:

21.1. The SCNs also alleges of violation of provisions of PFUTP Regulations,
2003 and Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
21.2. In this regard, I note that the scope of work, as was assigned to the
forensic auditor by BSE, as stated in the FAR, was as follows:
i) Possible misrepresentation including its financials and/or businesses and/ or

violation of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)
Regulation, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “LODR Regulations”) and/or
ii) Possible misusing of books of accounts/funds of the Company including
facilitation of accommodation entries and/ or entering into transaction to the
detriment of minority shareholders and controlling shareholders and key
management person (KMP)
For the aforesaid reasons, the audit inter alia should cover the following:
a. Suspicious transactions/items as provided in the SEBI / Exchange Orders
passed on the Company
b. To examine the Books of Accounts and backup records of the Company for the
period of two years including the year of transactions referred in SEBI/Exchange
order to:
I. Cash flow analysis to review major inflows and outflows during the
financial years. (as per annual report for last 2 years)
II. Assess genuineness of the debtors/ receivables and creditors I payables,
III. Reconciliation of debtors I creditors as stated by the Company vis-a-
vis the actual position and the prospects of recovery (focus on top
debtors).
IV. Analysis of related party transactions.
V. High value bank transactions to ascertain their relevance to the business
of the company and to identify the potential round-tripping of funds or
accommodation transactions.
VI. Assess genuineness of expenditure (capex as well as other goods and
services) and review of top vendors I suppliers I customers.
VII. Investments made by the company in subsidiary companies along with
the relevant fund flows, if any.
VIII. Assess genuineness of investments both listed and unlisted with
appropriateness of valuation and flow of funds.
Page 36 of 51
IX. Assessment of utilization of funds lying as share premium, if any, in

terms of provisions of Companies Act.
X. Comment on the shareholding pattern.
XI. Wherever applicable, the relevant funds flow including analysis of
relevant bank statements (also source and utilization of funds).
c. Verification/ discussions:
I. Independent and I or physical verification of the underlying transactions
II. Background/ reputation checks based on public domain information
related to promoters, nature/ line of business, genuineness of business
activities of the Company.
III. Discussions with key stakeholders like promoters/ senior management/
HODs, vendors, customers, company auditors, entities/persons
involved in day to day affairs of the Company, etc.
IV. Business history, directorship searches and litigations.
V. Assessment of size and scope of business.
VI. Site visit as may be applicable for verifying existence of the
Company's functional/ registered office, assets, place of execution of
services, etc. In case of doubt, site visit to be carried out at plants I
factories.
The Audit should cover aforesaid points for the period April2015 onwards and
wherever required, analysis may be carried out on sample basis.
21.3. As can be noted from the above terms of reference of the auditor, the
scope of audit was to examine possible violations of LODR Regulations,
2015 and accordingly, the findings of the FAR are confined only to
misrepresentation in the books of accounts of DIDL and consequential
and other violations of LODR Regulations, 2015 and the FAR does not
bring out violation of PFUTP Regulations, 2003. It is observed that the
Investigating Authority, after examining the FAR, incorporated the
findings of FAR as part of investigation report, and consequently, the
same was reproduced in the SCNs. However, the SCN I additionally
states,
“8. From the above, it was observed that the company (Noticee no.1) and its
directors (Noticee no. 2 to 7) have failed to present true and fair financial
statements, executed transactions which are non-genuine in nature resulting in
misrepresentation of the accounts/ financial statements and misuse of accounts/
funds of the company and such acts were found to be fraudulent in nature.”
Page 37 of 51
21.4. Consequently, the SCNs inter alia, additionally, includes allegation of

violation of provisions of Section 12A(a), (b) & (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992
and Regulations 3(b), (c) and (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(f) and (r) of PFUTP
Regulations, 2003. It is observed that Noticee no. 1 to 7 have been
additionally charged with the violation of Section 12A(a), (b) & (c) of the
SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulations 3(b), (c) & (d) of PFUTP Regulations,
2003 in the SCN however, it has not been alleged or finding given in the
SCN whether violation of the LODR Regulations, 2015 as found in the
FAR has directly or indirectly resulted in the manipulation of the price of
the scrip.
21.5. I note that there is no bar on taking action by SEBI on the basis of a FAR,
invoking provisions of PFUTP Regulations, 2003 and other similar
provision of SEBI Act, 1992 related to fraud, if, after examination of the
matter, including the FAR, SEBI finds that such violation of LODR
Regulations, 2015 etc. led to direct/ indirect manipulation of the price of
the scrip. Therefore, SEBI is at liberty to issue fresh SCN, if so deemed
fit, to pursue violations of PFUTP Regulations, 2003.
22. I find that, based on the defaults by DIDL as discussed in the previous paras, the
SCN I has inter alia alleged that by virtue of the provision of Section 27 of the SEBI
Act, 1992, Noticee No. 2 to 7, who were the directors/ CFO of the Company at the
relevant time, including Independent Directors are also liable for the violations alleged
to be committed by DIDL viz: Sections 12A(a),(b) and (c) , 11(2)(i) and 11(2)(ia) of
the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulations 3(b), (c) and (d) and 4(1) and 4(2) (f) and (r) of
the PFUTP Regulation, 2003, Regulations 4(1)(a), (b), (c), (g), 4(2) (f)(ii)(6),(7),
4(2)(f)(iii)(3), (6) and (12), 6 (1), 17(1), 17 (8), 21, 44(3), 46 (1) (2) and (2)(k) 33(2)(a)
and 48 of LODR Regulations, 2015 read with Section 21 of SCRA, 1956. Thus, the
SCN I imputes all the allegations which are levelled against DIDL, automatically, on
the directors/ CFO of DIDL.
23. In this regard, I note that, as discussed in para 12 above, it cannot be established
based on material available on record that Noticee no. 7 was a director in DIDL.
Page 38 of 51
Therefore, none of the allegations levelled against Noticee no. 7 (which flows from
his purported directorship in DIDL) are made out qua Noticee no.7.
24. I also note that during the relevant period (i.e. investigation period), Section 27
provided for the liability of certain persons who were in charge of and was responsible
to the company where the offence is committed by a company. Section 27 at that
time did not provide for the vicarious liability in respect of the civil liability of the
company arising out of the violations committed by such company. However, after
amendments made to Section 27 with effect from March 08, 2019, by the Finance
Act, 2018, vicarious liability for civil liability of the company has been introduced by
replacing the word “offence” with the word “contravention” in Section 27 of the SEBI
Act, 1992. Therefore, Section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992 does not create any vicarious
liability of Noticee Nos. 2 to 6 for the alleged violations committed by DIDL during the
investigation period, with reference to PFUTP Regulation, 2003 or LODR
Regulations, 2015 for which proceedings under Sections 11, 11(4), 11A, 11B (1) and
Section 12A(1) of SCRA, 1956 or monetary penalty are proposed, which are civil in
nature.
25. Now, the question remains whether Noticee Nos. 2 to 6 can be held independently
liable for the violations as alleged in SCN I without any reference to vicarious liability
under Section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992. I note that, with reference to the allegations
of violation of fraud provisions, i.e. Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992
and Regulations 3(b), (c), (d) Regulations 4(1) and 4(2) (f) and (r) of PFUTP
Regulations, 2003 against these Noticees, as already discussed in the forgoing
paras, liberty has been given to SEBI to further investigate and proceed with the
matter and the role of directors/ CFO qua these violations may also be examined by
SEBI. In my view, due to the aforesaid reasons, under the facts and circumstances
of the present case, the allegations of violation of Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the
SEBI Act, 1992 and provisions of PFUTP Regulations, 2003 is not tenable against
the Noticee nos. 2 to 6.
Page 39 of 51
26. Regarding violation of Section 11(2)(i) and 11(2)(ia) of the SEBI Act, 1992 alleged
against Noticee nos. 2 to 7, I note that, the said violations have been alleged in view
of the non-furnishing of information by DIDL to the forensic auditor. In this regard, I
note that information was sought by the forensic auditor from DIDL and not from these
directors or CFO in their capacity of the director/CFO of DIDL. In view of the
inapplicability of Section 27 of SEBI Act, 1992, Noticee No. 2 to 6, being directors
and Noticee No. 3 also being CFO, cannot be held liable for violation of Section
11(2)(i) and 11(2) (ia) of SEBI Act, 1992, as alleged in the SCN I. Further, Section 21
of SCRA and 4(1)(a),(b),(c),(e),(g) and 48 of LODR Regulations, 2015 which deal
with non-compliance with listing conditions is applicable to a listed entity and thus,
cannot be invoked against the Noticee Nos. 2 to 6.
27. With respect to violation of the other provisions of LODR Regulations, 2015 invoked
against Noticee Nos. 2 to 6 in the SCN I, I note that Regulations 4(2)(f)(ii) (6), (7) and
4(2)(f)(iii) (3), (6) and (12), 17(8), 21 and 33 of LODR Regulations, 2015 create
specific and direct liability of the board of directors of a listed entity. Clause (ii) of
Regulation 4(2)(f) deals with key functions of the board of directors and Clause (iii)
deals with other functions of the board of directors. Thus, board of directors is
responsible for complying with these principles. Any liability arising out of the violation
of these principles because of violation of disclosure or other obligation of the listed
entity under the LODR Regulations, 2015 is fastened on the board of directors of the
listed entity. As the Company has been found to be in violation of Regulation 4(1)(a),
(b), (c), (e) and (g) of LODR Regulations, 2015 therefore, board of directors of DIDL,
i.e., Noticee nos. 2 to 6 are in violation of Regulations 4(2)(f)(ii)(6), (7) and
4(2)(f)(iii)(3),(6) and (12) and 33(2)(a) of LODR Regulations, 2015 as alleged in the
SCN I.
28. I note that during the investigation period, Noticee nos. 2 to 6 were directors of the
Company and Noticee no.3 was its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) w.e.f May 30, 2017
as well as a director. It is observed that as per the Annual Reports of DIDL, the details
of the Board of Directors during the investigation period are as follows:
Page 40 of 51
FY 2015-16
Name Designation
Mr. Vikash Chowdhary Managing Director
Mr. Vineet Chowdhary Executive Directors
Mr. Alok Agarwal Non-Executive Directors
Mr. Sailendra Nath Bakshi Independent Directors

Mr. Kishor Vasant Hajare (as discussed in
pre-paras, not a director)
Mr. Vikash Dhelia
Ms. Pramila Bansal
Source: Annual report
FY 2016-17
Name Designation
Mr. Vikash Chowdhary Managing Director
Mr. Raj Mohta (appointed wef 30/05/2017) Whole Time Director

Mr. Alok Agarwal
Mr.Vikash Dhelia
Ms. Pramila Bansal
FY 2017-18
Name Designation
Mr. Vikash Chowdhary (Resigned wef Managing Director
30/05/2017)
Mr. Raj Mohta (appointed wef 30/05/2017) Whole Time Director

Mr. Alok Agarwal
Mr. Vikash Dhelia
Ms. Pramila Bansal
29. I note that Regulations 4(2)(f) and Regulation 33 creates specific duty on the whole
board of directors without making any distinction on the basis of designation of the
directors, viz: independent/ non-executive/ additional directors. Further, it is true that
non-executive directors (NED) and independent directors (ID) cannot be held liable
Page 41 of 51
for those acts that form part of day to day activities. However, these directors can be
held liable for those acts which come to their knowledge through board processes. In
the present case, the main allegation is misrepresentation of financials. In terms of
LODR Regulations, 2015, the financials are approved by the board of directors.
Therefore, NED and ID can be held liable. It is noted that Noticee nos. 2 and 6 were
members of the Audit Committee of DIDL for FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17. With effect
from May 30, 2017 Noticee nos. 2 resigned and was replaced by Noticee no.3 on the
Audit Committee of DIDL. I note that the details of Audit Committee meetings
attended by Noticee directors who were members of Audit Committee of DIDL are
not available in the Annual Reports of DIDL. Section 177 (4) of the Companies Act,
2013 lays down as follows:
“Every Audit Committee shall act in accordance with the terms of reference specified
in writing by the Board which shall, inter alia, include, -
(i) ……
(ii) examination of the financial statement and the auditors’ report thereon;
(iii) approval or any subsequent modification of transactions of the company with
related parties;
(iv) scrutiny of inter-corporate loans and investments;
(v) valuation of undertakings or assets of the company, wherever it is necessary;
(vi) evaluation of internal financial controls and risk management systems;
(vii) …...”
30. Regarding the liability of the Independent Directors for the acts of commission and
omission of a company reference may be made to Regulation 25(5) of the LODR
Regulations, 2015 which provides that an Independent Director shall be held liable,
only in respect of such acts of omission or commission by the listed entity which had
occurred with his knowledge, attributable through processes of board of directors,
and with his consent or connivance or where he had not acted diligently with respect
to the provisions contained in these regulations. As discussed in previous
paragraphs, the financials of DIDL were placed before the Audit Committee of DIDL
during the investigation period were inaccurate and inadequate. In terms of Section
177 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Part C of Schedule II read with Regulation 18(3)
of LODR Regulations, 2015 it was the duty of the Audit Committee of DIDL to
examine the financials, scrutinize inter corporate loans and investments and related
Page 42 of 51
party transactions etc. For the instances of misstatement and noncompliance with
accounting standards in the financials of DIDL pertaining to the investigation period,
the Audit Committee was required to act in accordance with its terms of reference,
as enlisted in Section 176 of the Companies Act, 2013. I note that Noticee nos. 6,
who was an Independent Director of DIDL, were part of the Audit Committee of the
Company which reviewed and approved the financial statements of DIDL, as part of
the board of directors of the Company. In view of the same, I find that failure to raise
any concern regarding the financials of DIDL, as member of the Audit Committee as
well as the board of directors of DIDL, shows that these directors did not act diligently
with respect to the provisions contained in the LODR Regulations, 2015.
31. I observe that in the previous paras, it has been found that the financial statements
of DIDL for the Investigation Period contained misstatements and the same were not
in line with the applicable Accounting Standards. I note that in terms of Regulation
33(2)(a) of LODR Regulations, 2015 the annual audited financial results are to be
approved by the board of directors of the listed entity. As the financial of DIDL were
misrepresented, as discussed above, therefore, Noticee nos. 2 and 6, who certified
the financial results of DIDL for the financial years 2015-16 and Noticee no. 3 who
certified the financial results of DIDL for the financial years2016-17 and 2017-18 are
in violation of Regulation 33(2)(a) of LODR Regulations, 2015. Further, the directors
of DIDL, did not exercise due diligence in approving the financials of DIDL. In view of
the same, I am of the view that the Noticee nos. 2 to 6 cannot deny responsibility in
the matter, and hence I find that they have violated Regulations 4(2)(f)(ii) (6),(7),
4(2)(f)(iii) (3), (6) and (12) of LODR Regulations, 2015.
32. With respect to the violation of Regulation 17(8), I note that Regulation 17(8) of the
LODR Regulations, 2015 provides that the CEO and CFO of a listed company shall
provide the compliance certificate to the board of directors as specified in Part B of
Schedule II of the said Regulations. As per the Annual Reports of the Company for
the investigation period, the Company did not have a Chief Executive Officer for FY
2015-16 and 2016-17, and the MD of the Company gave annual certification in terms
of Part B of Schedule II of the LODR Regulations, 2015. Having issued untrue
Page 43 of 51
certificates with respect to the financial statements of the Company, Noticee nos. 2
and 3 have also violated Regulation 17(8) read with Part B of Schedule II of LODR
Regulations, 2015.
33. I note that Noticee No. 8, being the statutory auditor of DIDL during investigation
period, have also been issued SCN, alleging that the statutory auditor has been
negligent in performance of its duties and has not been diligent in issuance of
unqualified audit opinion for DIDL for the Investigation Period, thereby, violating
provisions of Section 12A (a) (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulations 3(b)
(c), (d) and 4(1) and 4(2), (a), (e), (f) and (r) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. I
observe that in the FAR there is no finding against Noticee no.8. In this regard, before
dealing with the liability of the statutory auditor, it would be appropriate to refer to the
judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5249 of 2010 (filed by
Price Waterhouse, Bangalore) and Writ Petition No. 5256 of 2010 (filed by 10 CA
firms alongwith their partners), dated August 13, 2010, wherein Hon’ble Bombay High
Court, with respect to SEBI’s jurisdiction over auditors has held as follows:
“25.
…. In our view, the jurisdiction of SEBI would also depend upon the evidence
which is available during such inquiry. It is true, as argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, that the SEBI cannot regulate the profession of
Chartered Accountants. This proposition cannot be disputed in any manner.
It is required to be noted that by taking remedial and preventive measures in
the interest of investors and for regulating the securities market, if any steps
are taken by the SEBI, it can never be said that it is regulating the profession
of the Chartered Accountants. So far as listed Companies are concerned, the
SEBI has all the powers under the Act and the Regulations to take all remedial
and protective measures to safeguard the interest of investors and securities
market. So far as the role of Auditors is concerned, it is a very important role
under the Companies Act. As posited in Section 227 of the Companies Act,
every auditor of a company shall have a right of access at all times to the
books and accounts and vouchers of the Company, whether kept at the head
office of the company or elsewhere, and shall be entitled to require from the
officers of the Company such information and explanations as the auditor may
think necessary for the performance of his duties. The auditors in the
Company are functioning as statutory auditors. They have been appointed by
the shareholders by majority. They owe a duty to the shareholders and are
required to give a correct picture of the financial affairs of the Company.
…….
With a view to safeguard the interests of such investors, in our view, it is the
duty of the SEBI to see that maximum care is required to be taken to protect
the interest of such investors so that they may not be subjected to any fraud
or cheating in the matter of their investments in the securities market.
Page 44 of 51
Normally, an investor invests his money by considering the financial health of

the Company and in order to find out the same, one will naturally bank upon
the accounts and balance-sheets of the Company. If it is unearthed during
inquiry before SEBI that a particular Chartered Accountant in connivance and
in collusion with the Officers/Directors of the Company has concocted false
accounts, in our view, there is no reason as to why to protect the interests of
investors and regulate the securities market, such a person cannot be
prevented from dealing with the auditing of such a public listed Company. In
our view, the SEBI has got inherent powers to take all ancillary steps to
safeguard the interest of investors and securities market. …..”
34. From the above-mentioned judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it is observed
that for SEBI to exercise jurisdiction over an auditor, it has to be shown that the case
pertains to an auditor who in connivance and in collusion with the officers or directors
of a company has concocted false accounts. I note that in the present matter SCN II,
as issued to Noticee no. 8 only alleges that the statutory auditor was not diligent
enough in the issuance of an unqualified audit opinion for the financial statements of
DIDL. Failure to exercise due diligence amounts to violation of code of conduct
regulations by audit professionals prescribed by the conduct regulator. Violation of
conduct regulations can be appropriately judged by the conduct regulator such as
ICAI or NFRA. The SCN II does not allege that such failure to exercise due diligence
by the statutory auditor was in connivance with the promoters/ directors /
management of DIDL to fudge the financial statements of DIDL. Moreover, as
discussed in previous paras, I note that the charges of violation of provisions of SEBI
Act, 1992 and PFUTP Regulations, 2003, pertaining to fraud, have not been given
against any Noticee in the FAR. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in PWC matter (supra) and allegation made in SCN II against
Noticee No. 8, are not made out.
35. In view of the aforesaid findings and violations committed by DIDL and its directors
as given in paras 15 to 20 for DIDL and para 22 to 32 with respect to its directors, I
find that directions under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11A and 11B (1) of the SEBI Act,
1992 and Section 12A (1) of SCRA, 1956, needs to be issued.
36. SCN I in the matter, also calls upon the Noticee No. 1 to 7 to explain as to why
appropriate penalty be not imposed upon it under Section 15HA and 15HB of SEBI
Page 45 of 51
Act, 1992 and Section 23E and 23H of SCRA, 1956, for the violations alleged in the
SCN. Extract of these penalty provisions, as existing at the relevant time is as under:
Extract of Section 15 A(a), 15HA and 15HB of SEBI Act, 1992:
Penalty for failure to furnish information, return, etc.
15A. If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made
thereunder,—
(a) to furnish any document, return or report to the Board, fails to furnish the same he
shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may
extend to one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject
to a maximum of one crore rupees;
Penalty for fraudulent and unfair trade practices.

15HA.If any person indulges in fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities,
he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than five lakh rupees but which may
extend to twenty-five crore rupees or three times the amount of profits made out of such
practices, whichever is higher
Penalty for contravention where no separate penalty has been provided.

15HB. Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this Act, the rules or the regulations
made or directions issued by the Board thereunder for which no separate penalty has
been provided, shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees
but which may extend to one crore rupees………..”
Extract of Sections 23E of SCRA, 1956:
“Penalty for failure to comply with provision of listing conditions or delisting

conditions or grounds.
23E. If a company or any person managing collective investment scheme or mutual fund,
fails to comply with the listing conditions or delisting conditions or grounds or commits a
breach thereof, it or he shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than five lakh
rupees but which may extend to twenty-five crore rupees…………”
Penalty for contravention where no separate penalty has been provided.

23H. Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this Act, the rules or articles or bye-
laws or the regulations of the recognised stock exchange or directions issued by the
Securities and Exchange Board of India for which no separate penalty has been provided,
shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may
extend to one crore rupees.
37. From the analysis of the aforesaid penalty provisions, I find that penalty under Section
15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992, is attracted and not the penalties under Section 15HA
of SEBI Act, 1992 and Sections 23E of SCRA, 1956. I note that Section 15HA of the
SEBI Act, 1992 provides for imposition of penalty in case of fraudulent and unfair
trade practices committed by any person. As in the present case, it has been found
that violations of Section 12A (a), (b) & (c) of SEBI Act, 1992 and provisions of PFUTP
Regulations, 2003 have not been made out, therefore, penalty under Section 15HA
Page 46 of 51
of SEBI Act, 1992 is not attracted against the Noticees. I also not that Section 23E of
SCRA, 1956 provides for penalty for failure to comply with, inter alia, listing conditions
by “a company or any person managing collective investment scheme or mutual
fund”. In the present case, it has been found that DIDL is in violation of listing
conditions, however, DIDL is not managing any collective investment scheme or
mutual fund, so as to attract penalty under Section 23E of SCRA, 1956. I find that
penalty under Section 23H of SCRA, 1956 is also not attracted in the case of Noticee
No. 2 to 8, as Section 23H provides for penalty for failure to comply with any provision
of SCRA, 1956, the rules or articles or bye-laws or the regulations of the recognized
stock exchange or directions issued by SEBI for which no separate penalty has been
provided. As the Noticee No. 2 to 6, being directors/CFO of DIDL, have been found
to be in violation of LODR Regulations, 2015 which is a regulation framed under the
SEBI Act, 1992 and SCRA, 1956 by SEBI and not the “regulation” of stock exchange,
as contemplated under Section 23H, and there is no violation of direction of SEBI
directions alleged against these Noticees, therefore, Section 23H is not attracted in
the case of Noticee No. 2 to 6. DIDL has been found to have violated provision of
Section 21 of SCRA Act, 1956, therefore, provisions of Section 23H is attracted qua
Noticee No.1.
38. I find that for non-furnishing of information to forensic auditor, as found above, DIDL
is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act, 1992 which
provides penalty for failure to furnish information, inter alia, sought by SEBI under the
provisions of SEBI Act, 1992. For the violation of provisions of LODR Regulations,
2015 DIDL is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act,
1992 which provides for penalty for failure to comply with any provision of SEBI Act,
1992, the rules or the regulations made or directions issued by SEBI for which no
separate penalty has been provided. Since, LODR Regulations, 2015 are framed
under SEBI Act, 1992 also and penalty provisions under SEBI Act, 1992 (i.e. 15A to
15HA) does not separately provide for any penalty for violation of LODR Regulations,
2015 therefore, for violation of LODR Regulations, 2015 by DIDL, as found in this
Order, penalty under Section 15HB is attracted against DIDL. Similarly, Noticee No.
2 to 6 who are the directors/CFO of DIDL are liable for imposition of penalty, for the
Page 47 of 51
violations of LODR Regulations, 2015 which are found to be committed by them,

under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992.
39. For imposition of penalty under the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992, Section 15J of
the SEBI Act,1992 provides as follows:
“Factors to be taken into account while adjudging quantum of penalty.

15J. While adjudging quantum of penalty under 15-I or section 11 or section 11B,
the Board or the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors,
namely: —(a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage,
wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
(b) the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors as a result of
the default;
(c) the repetitive nature of the default.
Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the power to adjudge
the quantum of penalty under sections 15A to 15E, clauses (b) and (c) of section
15F, 15G, 15H and 15HA shall be and shall always be deemed to have been
exercised under the provisions of this section.”
40. I find that allegations made in the SCN does not mention the amount of
disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made as a result of the default. I find that
allegations made in the SCN do not indicate the amount of specific loss caused to
investors or group of investors as a result of the default by Noticee No. 1 to 6. I note
that some of the allegations in the SCN relating to misrepresentation in financials
have been found to be correct in the case of the Company. However, I note that the
violations have occurred over a period of three financial years. I also note that Noticee
No. 6 was Independent Director of DIDL for FY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, and
Noticee No. 3 was the Chief Financial Officer and director of the Company for FY
2017-18.
Directions and monetary penalties:
41. In view of the aforesaid findings and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Sections 11(1), 11(4),
11(4A), 11A and 11B(1), 11B(2) of SEBI Act, 1992 and Section 12A(1) of SCRA,
1956 read with Section 19 and Section 11(2)(j) of SEBI Act, 1992, Rule 5 of the SEBI
(Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995 and Rule 5 of
Page 48 of 51
the SC(R) (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 2005, direct
as under:
(i) The Noticee nos.1 (DIDL), 2 (Mr. Vikash Chowdhary), 3 (Mr. Raj Mohta), 4
(Mr. Vineet Chowdhary) and 5 (Mr. Alok Agarwal), are restrained from
accessing the securities market and further prohibited from buying, selling or
otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with
the securities market in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of one (1) year,
from the date of coming into force of this order;
(ii) The Noticee no.6 (Mr. Shailendra Nath Bakshi) are restrained from accessing
the securities market and further prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise
dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the
securities market in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of six (6) months,
from the date of coming into force of this order;
(iii) The Noticee Nos. 1 to 6, are hereby imposed with, the monetary penalties,
as specified hereunder:
Noticee No. Name of Provisions Penalty Amount

Noticees under which
penalty imposed
Noticee no. 1 Dalmia Industrial Section 23H of Rs. 30,00,000/-
Development Ltd. SCRA, Section (Rupees Thirty Lakh)
15HB and and Rs.10,00,000/-
Section 15A(a) (Rupees Ten Lakh)
of SEBI Act,
1992
Noticee no. 2 Mr. Vikash Section 15HB of Rs. 10,00,000/-
Chowdhary SEBI Act, 1992 (Rupees Ten Lakh)
Noticee no. 3 Mr. Raj Mohta Section 15HB of Rs. 5,00,000/-
SEBI Act, 1992 (Rupees Five Lakh)
Noticee no. 4 Mr. Vineet Section 15HB of Rs. 15,00,000/-

Chowdhary SEBI Act, 1992 (Rupees Fifteen
Lakh)
Page 49 of 51
Noticee no. 5 Mr. Alok Agarwal Section 15HB of Rs. 11,00,000/-

SEBI Act, 1992 (Rupees Eleven
Lakh)
Noticee no. 6 Mr. Shailendra Section 15HB of Rs. 3,00,000/-

Nath Bakshi SEBI Act, 1992 (Rupees Three Lakh)
(iv) The Noticees shall remit / pay the said amount of penalties within 45 days
from the date of receipt of this order. The Noticees shall remit / pay the said
amount of penalties through either by way of Demand Draft in favour of “SEBI
- Penalties Remittable to Government of India”, payable at Mumbai, or
through online payment facility available on the website of SEBI, i.e.
www.sebi.gov.in on the following path, by clicking on the payment link:
ENFORCEMENT -> Orders -> Orders of Chairman/ Members -> PAY NOW.
In case of any difficulties in online payment of penalties, the said Noticees
may contact the support at portalhelp@sebi.gov.in. The demand draft or the
details/ confirmation of e-payment should be sent to "The Division Chief,
CFID-2, Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan II, Plot no. C-
7, "G" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051” and
also to e-mail id:- tad@sebi.gov.in in the format as given in table below:
Case Name
Name of Payee
Date of Payment
Amount Paid
Transaction No.
Payment is made for: (like penalties/ disgorgement/

recovery/ settlement amount/ legal charges along with
order details)
Page 50 of 51
(v) The proceedings against Noticee no. 7 are disposed of without any adverse
directions, in terms of observations at paragraphs 12 and 22.
(vi) The proceedings against Noticee no. 8 are disposed of without any adverse
directions, in terms of observations at paragraphs 32 and 33.
42. The obligation of the Noticees, restrained/ prohibited by paragraphs 40(i) and (ii) of
this Order, in respect of settlement of securities, if any, purchased or sold in the cash
segment of the recognized stock exchange(s), as existing on the date of this Order,
are allowed to be discharged irrespective of the restraint/prohibition imposed by this
Order. Further, all open positions, if any, of the Noticees, restrained/prohibited in the
present Order, in the F & O segment of the recognised stock exchange(s), are
permitted to be squared off, irrespective of the restraint/prohibition imposed by this
Order.
43. This Order comes into force with immediate effect.
44. This Order shall be served on all the Noticees, Recognized Stock Exchanges,
Depositories and Registrar and Share Transfer Agents of mutual funds to ensure
necessary compliance.
45. A copy of this Order shall also be forwarded to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Reserve Bank of India and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, along with a
copy of the Forensic Audit Report for their information and necessary action, if any.
ANANTA BARUA
Date: April 21, 2022 WHOLE TIME MEMBER
Place: Mumbai SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Page 51 of 51

Final Order in The Matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Order in The Matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Order in The Matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Order in the matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited

Noticee No. Name of Noticees PAN

1. Dalmia Industrial Development Limited AAACD9405B

5. Mr. Alok Agarwal ACSPA4871B

6. Mr. Shailendra Nath Bakshi ACXPB4934B

7. Mr. Kishore Vasant Hajare AGSPH2965B

8. M/s R K P Associates Chartered AAGFR4500G

i) Misrepresentation including of financials and/or business of DIDL,

2.4. The investigation by SEBI, inter-alia, revealed the following:

I. Misrepresentation including of financials and misuse of funds/books

ii) The Noticee’s submission is as follows:

Year Income on Loan and Advances (Both Rate of return

Years 2016 2017 2018 2019

Turnover 4766.90 2310.80 1356.83 52.68

Debtors 302.99 320.74 439.05 24.29

xviii) Voting results were always informed to BSE.

i) He is the resident of Kombadpada, near Chatrapati Shivaji Chowk, Bhiwandi

i) The allegations made in the SCN are based on surmises, conjectures.

Note Number Balance of Loans And Balance of Loans Increase/(Decrease)

11 Short Term Loans

Total 54,5 1 ,820.00

Net Increase N.A. N.A. 54,5 1 ,820.OO

As depicted in Description Increase/(Decrease) The Major Head Of Assets And

(A) Increase In Loans And Cash Flow From Operating Activity.

(B) Loans And Advances Cash Flow from Investing Activity

Loans Received Back Cash Flow from Investing Activity

Less: Tax Deducted At Source -41,719.00

Net Difference 11,07,226.00

Consideration of submissions and findings:

Relevant extract of the provisions of SEBI Act, 1992:

12A. No person shall directly or indirectly-

Relevant extract of provisions of SCRA, 1956:

“…………Conditions for listing.

Relevant extract of the provisions of PFUTP Regulations, 2003:

“…………3. Prohibition of certain dealings in securities

4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 3, no person shall indulge in a

board of directors shall have an optimum combination of executive and non-executive

SCHEDULE II - PART B: COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

(2) The majority of members of Risk Management Committee shall consist of

“..........2. As the appellant has already made a representation to BSE

3. SEBI is directed to dispose of the representation made by the appellant

A. Misrepresentation including of financials and misuse of funds/books of

15. Misrepresentation including of financials and misuse of funds/books of

15.1. Discrepancy in the figure relating to Loans and Advances:

FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 and is in violation of Regulations 4(1)(a),(b), (c)

(c) In my view, there appears to be a difference of observation between the

15.3. Discrepancy between trade receivable and revenue:

- “With regard to trade receivables of Rs. 3.03 crore reported in the

(FY 2015-16), DIDL during personal hearing has submitted ‘Annexure- 4’

and I find that the Company is in violation of Regulation 4(1)(a),(b), (c)

15.4. DIDL had made investments in companies with Nil revenue:

lakhs in unquoted equity shares of Lifewood Cotton Industries Private

15.5. DIDL had nil closing stock as on March 31, 2018:

15.6. Allegation related to computation of preliminary expenses:

(c) In this regard the FAR observes as follows:

(d) I note that in response to the above-mentioned detailed observations in the

15.8. Allegations related to the premises of the Company:

16. From the discussion in paras 15 above, I find that: