The Ketan Parekh Scam

<< Previous

Detailing the Frauds

JVG’s troubles started in June 1997, after the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) asked JVG Finance to refund the Rs 45 crore it had raised from a public issue in March 1997. A day after the issue had opened, RBI issued a show-cause notice asking why JVG Finance should not be barred from accepting deposits as the group companies had already exceeded their deposit limits. By the time RBI conditionally cleared the issue after assurances from Sharma, the 70-day stipulated period for listing the shares had passed. Because of the time-lapse, SEBI intervened and ordered the refund of the public’s money according to the allotment rules. Sharma refused to refund the money to the investors and appealed against the order to the Finance ministry. He admitted that JVG had exceeded its limits while accepting deposits but claimed that since December 1996 (much before the RBI ban) it had stopped accepting deposits on its own and had even given RBI an undertaking. RBI did not accept the argument and barred the group from accepting any more public deposits.

In September 1997, post-dated cheques issued for principal as well as interest on JVG’s deposits bounced. Investors then complained to the civil courts, consumer courts, Company Law Board and criminal courts under the Negotiable Instruments Act upon which legal proceedings were initiated against the group. The government received a large number of complaints on non-repayment of deposits on maturity by the JVG group. On a complaint filed by the RBI, the Delhi High Court ordered the winding up of the company. The court also appointed an official liquidator and said that the RBI did not consider the revival scheme filed by the company viable. The RBI also filed criminal prosecution petitions in the Metropolitan Magistrates’ Courts in New Delhi.

RBI alleged that the company had accepted deposits worth Rs 88.82 crore which was 756.68% of its net owned fund. This was much higher than the permissible limit of 25%². Similarly, JVG Leasing had received deposits worth Rs 19.28 crore which was 147.58% of its net owned fund. The RBI complaint also said that the deposit forms issued by the JVG Group did not contain any information regarding premature withdrawals, which was necessary as per RBI provisions. The companies had not provided any information about the rate of interest to the investors on the receipts issued to them. Further, the companies failed to submit their audited balance sheets for the period ending March 31, 1994 and 1995 15 days after their annual general meeting (AGM) and did not inform the RBI about the changes in the composition of the board of directors.

Next >>

---

2] The other prevailing norms for NBFCs included a minimum capital base of Rs 25 lakh and a capital adequacy ratio of 12%. Besides, there were ceilings on the interest rates offered.