9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible and reasonable. It takes into account the promise made, intention and spirit of the scheme. It appears that the petitioners have changed their stand inspite of their letter dated 9th June, 1999 admitting the position that the respondent No. 2, AITD, is entitled to dividend for the financial year 1996-97. As a writ court there is no justification and reason to set aside concurrent findings of both SEBI and the Central Government. Writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners will pay dividend along with simple interest @ 8 per cent p.a. from 31st March, 1998 till the dividend amount was deposited. Interest will be paid directly to the respondent No. 2, AITD, within two months. The interest accruing on the fixed deposit will be also pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-4-1996 to 31-3-1997 14.75% 7th year 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998 15.25% 3. Respondent No. 2, AITD, was paid minimum assured return dividend up to the financial year ending 31st March, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioners did not pay the minimum assured return for the year ending 31st March, 1997. This was probably on account of the fact that the petitioners did not have sufficient capital balance and income to pay the assured return as is apparent from the letter dated 9th June, 1999 written by the petitioners to SEBI. 4. Respondent No. 2, AITD, surrendered the units to the petitioners on 25th September, 1997 and the said units were redeemed on the net asset value. Subsequently, the petitioners decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the Register, prior to declaration of income distribution by the Trust, shall be entitled to receive and retain the income so distributed." 7. The aforesaid clause has to be read harmoniously and along with the clauses under which minimum assured return was provided. The scheme postulates payment of dividend at regular intervals. Thus, in normal course, dividend for the financial year 1996-97 should have been declared and paid immediately after the end of the said financial year. The dividend for 1996-97 got delayed because the petitioners themselves did not abide and fulfil their promise of assured return. There was lapse and default on the part of the petitioners in declaring the dividend for the financial year 1996-97. The prom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by us, justifying the position that the redemption was carried out fully complying with the terms of the offer document of the scheme was detailed in the various letters dated 25-4-1998, 27-4-1998, 4-5-1998 and 18-11-1998 addressed to SEBI. 10.1 The salient points are reiterated below : 1.Units have been redeemed at NAV as on 31-3-1998 in terms of clause 16 of the offer document which provides for redemption at net asset value. 2.Since the commencement of the scheme on 1-12-1990 till 31-3-1996 dividend had been declared at the minimum assured rate or at higher rates under Plan A of the scheme. Under Plan B of the scheme, the dividend at the same rate was declared and reinvested in the scheme itself. This fully complies with clause 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he month of September, 1997. However, after the redemption of the scheme on 31-3-1998, AITD preferred a claim for the dividend declared for the year 1996-97 and prorate dividend till September, 1997 on the plea that the dividend under the scheme was assured and the same was declared under the scheme only at the time of redemption. The legal opinion obtained by the bank was not in favour of recognizing the claim, as AITD was not a unit holder as on the record dated (31-3-1998) when the dividend was declared. However, accepting in spirit the concept of assured dividend, in the larger interest of the investors and in complying with the advice of SEBI over the matter, we have agreed to settle the dividend claim for 1996-97 of not only AITD but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contentions of the parties have been considered and the relevant clauses interpreted. The orders and the interpretation given is plausible and reasonable. It takes into account the promise made, intention and spirit of the scheme. It appears that the petitioners have changed their stand inspite of their letter dated 9th June, 1999 admitting the position that the respondent No. 2, AITD, is entitled to dividend for the financial year 1996-97. As a writ court there is no justification and reason to set aside concurrent findings of both SEBI and the Central Government. 13. No other issue and contention has been argued. 14. In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners will pay dividend along with s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
