Legal Reference Library

In Pramod Jain Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India,  the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was :- (i) To what extent is the timeline laid down under the Takeover Regulations required to be adhered to and effect of delay by SEBI in the present case? (ii) To what extent unilateral action of the target company in dealing with the property of the company after a hostile public offer is made furnish cause of action to the acquirers to withdraw the public offer and whether in the present case, decision not permitting withdrawal of public offer is justified? The Hon'ble court held that :- i) The withdrawal has to be dealt with under Regulation 27, as held by this Court. The general principle is that public offer once made cannot be withdrawn. Exception to the rule is the specified situations under the Regulation as laid down by this Court in above decisions particularly in Nirma Industries Limited (Supra). In the present case, though SEBI was not ...

While rendering relief to a woman who failed to procure back her gold ornaments from Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd., which were pledged while taking a loan, NCDRC directed the Finance Company to reimburse the woman with the current value of 52 grams gold pledged in 2003 with it. Earlier, in Year 2003, the complainant pledged 52 grams of gold for Rs 21,000 with the Paravoor branch of Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd. When she approached the concerned branch in April 2004 to take back the ornaments by paying the loan amount with interest, they refused, saying that the ornaments had been transferred to their head office by mistake. Thereafter, she left the town where she was then living and settled in Ernakulam. In May 2011, she approached the Finance Company again to redeem the ornaments pledged, but the said ornaments were not returned to her. Being aggrieved, she approached District Forum with a complaint. Before the Forum, Company contended that the complaint was barred by limitation...

In a setback to Adel Landmarks Limited, a real estate enterprise, the SEBI directed the company and its directors to refund the money collected from the public under its ‘pre-booking of plots’ scheme. Adel, without registration and approval under SEBI’s Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) Regulations, collected the money from the public for purchase /acquisition of future land for development of residential colonies. Adel contended that it collected the money for pre-booking of plots being developed on the land already owned by it either directly or through subsidiaries. The SEBI through its whole time member, on the other hand, examining the agreements by Adel with perspective buyers and other materials on record found that Adel was pooling money to purchase future land which amounts to scheme/arrangement under S. 11AA(2)(i) of the SEBI Act, 1992. He observed that the Company has solicited investments with a promise of refund of investment amount along with return in the nature of co...

Actual Loss to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations The security market regulator imposed penalty of Rs. 4,50,000 on M/s. Khatau Exim Limited (the company) for non compliance with Takeover Regulation, 1997 and Sec. 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992. The company was found guilty for not to make annual filing to the stock Exchanges where the company’s shares were listed in respect of the holdings of the promoters or person(s) having control over the company. The adjudicating officer of SEBI while considering the quantum of penalty relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in SEBI v.  Shri Ram Mutual Fund in which it was ruled that, “penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of the statutory obligation as contemplated by the Act and the Regulations is established and hence the intention of the parties committing such violation becomes wholly irrelevant…”. Adjudication Order in the matter of M/s. Khatau Exim Limited, ORD...