to the appellants. If the money had been lent on a principal-to-principal basis as is the case of the appellants, then the refunds should not have been returned to the appellants and only the principal amount needed to be returned along with interest. It is interesting to note that the entire amount which came by way of refund was not returned to the appellants and only a part thereof was returned and a major portion was retained by the key operators as roll over money which was used for making applications for the next IPO that was to follow shortly . To illustrate, in the case of IPO of ILFS, the key operators received a refund of 5,22,31,250 because the number of shares allotted were less than those applied for. Instead of returning this entire amount, the key operators returned to the appellants only a sum of 46,31,250 and retained 4.76 crores with them which was the exact amount required by them for making applications in the next IPO of IDFC that was coming out within a few days. This, according to Budhwani against whom separate action has been taken, was done "As per mutual understanding of profit sharing, shares were to be transferred to Mr. DushantDalal, a financier. However, as per his advice, a part of his shares were transferred". It was on the basis of this understanding between the appellants and the key operators that on allotment of 62,500 shares in the IPO of ILFS, the latter transferred only 19,650 shares. We also notice that in the case of all the ten IPOs, the appellants had provided the exact amount that was required for making the requisite number of applications instead of a round figure which would have been the case had these been ordinary loan transactions. Be that as it may, it is the appellants' own case That they advanced loans to the key operators without executing any document(s) or taking any security. The appellants in their written submissions filed on the conclusion of the hearing have clearly stated that "THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE APPELLANTS AND PB OR SUGANDH". They have given detailed reasons in paragraph 19 of their submissions as to why there is no nexus between them. Assuming this to be so, (though we are holding to the contrary) we wonder how such large sums of money could be given on loan without any documentation or security to persons with whom the appellants had no nexus. To say the least, this is most incredible and we are not willing to accept this argument. Besides the mere ipse dixit of the appellants, there is no material on the record to show that they advanced loans to the two key operators.
