Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... .6.1 in view of the above findings, i, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 19 of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992, read with regulation 4(6) of sebi (substantial acquisition of shares and takeovers) regulations, 1997, hereby grant exemption to the acquirer, from complying with ..... the steps being taken in pursuing the legal cases instituted and co-operation would be extended to the authorities, as and when required and that there is no change contemplated in the control of the target company, including in the composition of the board of directors as a consequence of the proposed transaction.5.1 ..... chapter iii of takeover regulations with respect to the proposed indirect acquisition.2.1 in the application dated 16.3.2005, the acquirer had made the following submissions.2.2 the acquirer is a non-banking financial company established with the object of promoting and financing industrial enterprises and is registered with the reserve bank of india. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... / voting rights by an acquirer. in this regard it will be pertinent to advert to the judgement of hon'ble supreme court in reserve bank of india vs. peerless general finance and investment co. (1987) 1 scc 424 wherein it has , interalia , been observed that "interpretation must depend on the text and the context. they are the bases of ..... arises, unless and until the condition is satisfied or occurs. this rule of new york law is essentially similar to that under section 32 of the indian contract act.3.9 that no effective and binding obligation came into existence requiring the acquirer group to purchase 44.152% shares of target company held by b&l south asia inc., since ..... the exemption granted under section 3(1)(j)(ii), there has been no violation of the provisions of regulations 10 and 12 read with regulation 14(1) and 14(3) of the take over regulations or any provisions of sebi act.3.18 that in view of the exemption granted under 3(1)(j)(ii), public announcement in terms of regulation 14(1 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... for the appellant suggested that we should appoint an independent accounting firm for this purpose to which the learned counsel for the respondent had no objection. we, therefore, appoint m/s. deloitte touche tohmatsu india pvt. ltd., mumbai to evaluate dunlop as on the date of acquisition ..... 68.98% shares and voting rights in falcon tyres limited (falcon). both dunlop and falcon are companies registered in india under the companies act, 1956. we are only concerned with dunlop in the present appeal. with the acquisition of 100 percent holding of dil, the appellants indirectly ..... board of india (substantial acquisition of shares and takeovers) regulations, 1997 (the takeover code). 2. the appellants acquired from jumbo world holdings ltd.- a company registered and incorporated under the companies act of british virgin islands, its 100 percent shares and voting rights in dil rim and wheel ..... india pvt. ltd., mumbai at the earliest. the appeal stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... boards circular of march 2006 which read as under:- january 2006 circular 2. back ground: 2.1 . 2.2 as per the provisions of the act, every banking company, financial institution (which includes chit fund company, a cooperative bank, a housing finance institution and a non-banking financial company) and intermediary (which includes a stock ..... system, developed suspicion about the trades, it cannot be argued that the appellant, being a stock broker, should have developed suspicion that there was no economic rationale or bonafide purpose of the impugned trades. learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the order passed by this tribunal in the case ..... the information is required to be forwarded is also provided in the said circulars. all intermediaries are required to report the suspicious transactions having no economic value or bonafide purpose to the director fiu within the time and in the manner provided in the said circular irrespective of whether or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... necessary to adjudicate upon the first contention. as regards the second contention, it is nobodys case that a valid pledge in terms of section 12 of the depositories act read with regulation 58 of the aforesaid regulations had been created. the learned senior counsel also sought to contend that there are discrepancies and manipulations in the loan documents that ..... amount. the board by its letter dated march 28, 2011 rejected the request made by the lender upon which the latter filed appeal no. 110 of 2011 before this tribunal which was disposed of on september 2, 2011 on an agreement between the parties. it was agreed that the lender shall approach the board with all the relevant records and ..... per: n. k. sodhi, presiding officer (oral) 1. aditya birla finance limited, the appellant herein is a non-banking finance company registered with the reserve bank of india and engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its clients. it shall be referred to hereinafter as the lender. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... the learned counsel for the board that there is any factual distinction in the present case. 7. the appellants contention of double jeopardy is of no significance since the provisions of the sebi act permit parallel proceedings for adjudication and directions under section 11. 8. in the present case, a monetary penalty of rs.1,50,000 was imposed ..... as a broker. 10. there is some merit in the contention of the appellant that the impugned order is delayed and it is not in conformity with regulation 28 (2) of the intermediaries regulations. we are conscious of the fact that the said regulation does not prescribe a blanket time limit. it has been laid down that after providing ..... time gap between the date of hearing by the whole time member and the date of the impugned order which goes against the provisions laid down in regulation 28(2) of the intermediaries regulations. with regard to the facts of the case it is argued that the appellant was not supplied with the entire order logs relating to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... makes a stock-broker or sub-broker liable to monetary penalty if he fails to comply with directions issued by the board under the act or regulations framed thereunder. no provisions of the act or regulations have been pointed out which have been violated by the appellant in this case. we are, therefore, unable to agree ..... the explanation furnished by the appellant was two fold, (i) the date of settlement is duly mentioned in the contract notes issued to the clients and (ii) they were issuing a single contract note to the client for all the transactions during the day. therefore they were not mentioning the settlement number. it was ..... stock brokers and sub-brokers) regulations, 1992 (for short the stock brokers regulations) read with boards circulars dated november 18, 1993 and august 27, 2003. (ii) allowing unauthorized persons to carry out proprietary account trading besides client based trading thereby violating regulation 26(xv) of the stock brokers regulations. (iii) failing to segregate .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... utilized for the purpose of subscribing to the shares of the company. the appellants had subscribed to the shares through cheques by withdrawing the credit balance and finance from m/s. rajesh jhaveri and the cheques were debited from the bank account of the appellants and got credited to the bank account of the company. ..... unable to accept this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. on issue no.(ii) that the appellants are only investors and, therefore, they do not fall within the category of an intermediary as defined in section 12 of the act or within the category of a person associated with the securities market, we are of ..... of these proceedings, the board issued a fresh show-cause notice on february 29, 2008 initiating disgorgement proceedings against the appellants under sections 11 and 11b of the act. by the said show-cause notice, the appellants were given an opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in the show-cause notice. the appellants filed their .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... director respectively. sareshwalas including these two directors are the promoters of parsoli and they hold 87.59% of its shares. it carried on the business of non-banking finance company and was also a stock broker on the national stock exchange ltd. and bse. parsoli was also a depository participant affiliated to the central depository services ( ..... or accessing the securities market for a period of seven years from the date of the impugned order. in addition, zafar sareshwala and uves sareshwala (appellants no. 2 and 3) have also been restrained from holding the position of a director in any listed company for a period of seven years from the date of the ..... abdul hameed abdul gaffer memon (e) absuldamad abdul gaffer memon under section 15ha of sebi act, 1992 for the violation of regulations 3 (a) to (d), 4(1) and (2) (h) of the sebi (futp) regulations, 2003. parsoli has filed appeal no.112 of 2010 against this order whereas the promoter group including the aforesaid two directors of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
..... of violating section 12a(d) and (e) of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (the act) and imposing a penalty of rs.50 lacs and rs.10 lacs respectively under section 15g(i) of the act. 2. mr. v. k. kaul, appellant in appeal no. 55 of 2012, was a non-executive independent director of ranbaxy laboratories limited (ranbaxy) for ..... price sensitive information known only to the insiders. mr. v. k. kaul was in constant touch with mr. malvinder singh and mr. umesh sethi, vice president and head global finance of ranbaxy and also on the board of rexcel and solus. mr. v. k. kaul, being an insider, purchased 35000 shares of the target company on behalf of his ..... relation to that company. explanation :for the purpose of clause (c), the words connected person shall mean any person who is a connected person six months prior to an act of insider trading; (e) insider means any person who, (i) is or was connected with the company or is deemed to have been connected with the company and .....
Tag this Judgment!