Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: tezpur university act 1993 section 24 the finance committee Court: sebi securities and exchange board of india or securities appellate tribunal sat Page 1 of about 19 results (0.205 seconds)

Sms Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2004)49SCL117SAT

..... book - private international law (by paras diwan - former director indian institute of comparative and family law and formerly professor and chairman, department of law, punjab university) ".........the law of the domicile of the company governs not only matters relating to its constitution and dissolution and but also all other internal matters. thus the ..... amendment became effective; such liabilities are kept alive. in support of this he cited p. v. mohammad barmay vs. director of enforcement.a.i.r. 1993 s.c. 1188, 1192. the rights of the parties are concerned by the law as it existed at the time the proceedings were commenced and amendment ..... acquisition of companies, whether listed or unlisted and whether in india or abroad." 221. regulation 2 provides definition of certain expressions including ' control' 'person acting in concert' etc. referred to in the takeover regulations. the scope of these definitions cannot be abridged or enlarged for the purpose of administering the provisions .....

Pan Asia Advisors International Corporate Finance Minster House and An ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... global depository receipts has been defined in clear terms under the provisions of the gdr scheme of 1993 and not in the sebi act, 1992, or the securities contracts (regulations) act, 1956, or the depositories act (1996), or the existing companies act, 1956. section 2(c) of the said scheme reads as follows :- 2(c) global ..... in the following i. issue of foreign currency convertible bonds and ordinary shares (through depository receipts mechanism) scheme, 1993. ii. the reserve of india master circular on foreign investment in india. iii. the foreign exchange management act, 1999 iv. the foreign exchange management (transfer or issue of security by a person resident outside of india ..... is limited to the extent specified therein and therefore, in respect of violations of gdrs, if any, special provisions contained in 1993 scheme would prevail over general provisions contained in sebi act, 1992. 10. it is difficult to accept above arguments advanced on behalf of appellants. 11. preamble to the sebi .....

Sebi Vs. Padmini Technologies Limited and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... as to whether the opportunity of cross-examination would be the very core of the principles of natural justice with an universal application or a case specific adjunct. the provisions of the act and the regulations as mentioned above do not recognize the concept of cross examination of the persons from whom the statements have been taken ..... entities listed at sr. nos. 2 to 7 in table 3 above.padmini & its promoter namely shri. vivek nagpal were known to shri sunil kishorepuria since 1993-94, as he had business dealings with padmini it appeared that shri sunil kishorepuria had served as the main contact point for facilitating preferential allotments to other kolkatta ..... listed at sr. nos. 2 to 7 in table 3 above. it further transpired that shri sunil kishorepuria was known to padmini and shri vivek nagpal since 1993-94, as he had business dealings with them and that shri sunil kishorepuria had served as the main contact point for facilitating preferential allotments to other kolkata based .....

Ksl and Industries Ltd. Vs. the Chairman, the Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)48SCL285SAT

..... is bad and deserves to be set aside. in this context he cited the observation made by the hon'ble bombay high court in universal agencies p. ltd. v. union of india (1993 (68) elt 27 (bom)) holding that imposition of penalty, if at all, after a lapse of ten years is not just and ..... facilitated an artificial rise in the prices of mfl shares on the secondary market, thereby inducing the sale or purchase of shares by investing public" and "these acts are market manipulations" and "unfair trade practices" specifically prohibited under regulation 4 and 6 of the futp regulations respectively. the root cause of the irregular allotment ..... thus facilitated an artificial rise in the price of mfl shares on the secondary market, thereby inducing the sale or purchase of shares by the investing public. these acts are "market manipulation" and "unfair trade practices" specifically prohibited under regulation 4 and 6 of sebi(prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities .....

D.A. Gadgil Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... 24 and the safeguards provided therein to protect persons from arbitrariness in the hands of the respondents. according to him a direction under section 11b is not of universal reach but of limited audience, specified in the section itself and that the appellant is not a person falling within its ambit.13. countering the respondents' stand ..... order under challenged, it is felt necessary to briefly state the background leading to filing of the present appeal.3. the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 ('the act') provides for the establishment of a board, namely the securities & exchange board of india, to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote ..... rule of law, the state or the legislature does not intend that in exercise of their statutory powers its functionaries should act unfairly or unjustly".supreme court in d.k. yadav v. jma industrial ltd. [1993] 3 scc 259 had observed that "it is fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will .....

Shri D.A. Gadgil Vs. Sebi and ors., Shri D.R. Mehta,

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... the safe guards provided therein to protect persons from arbitrariness in the hands of the respondents. according to him a direction under section 11 b is not of universal reach but of limited audience, specified in the section itself and that the appellant is not a person falling within its ambit.12. countering the respondents' stand ..... under challenge, it is felt necessary to briefly state the back ground leading to filing of the present appeal.3. the securities and exchange board of india, act, 1992 (the act) provides for the establishment of a board, namely the securities & exchange board of india, to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the ..... rule of law, the state or the legislature does not intend that in exercise of their statutory powers its functionaries should act unfairly or unjustly".28. supreme court in d.k.yadav v. jma industrial ltd (1993) 3 scc 259 had observed that "it is fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect .....

Bank of Baroda Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... in matters relating to public issue of shares has been recognised by punjab and haryana high court also as could be seen from its decision in universal incast ltd., vs. appellate authority, sebi (2000 clc 948).in the said case the respondent while exercising the appellate powers under section 22 of the securities ..... applicants. instead of complying with the said direction, the company preferred an appeal against the order before the appellate authority under the securities & exchange board of india act (the act). the appeal was dismissed on august 22, 1997. the company filed a revision application before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed on march 17, 1998 ..... vs.state of bihar (1993) 77 com.case 356(sc) throws enough light on the role of dual agencies where enforcement of power is found overlapping. in khemka's case the criminal proceeding pending against the appellants was challenged on the ground that since the provisions of the companies act take care of the interest .....

Kishore Rajaram Chhabria Vs. the Chairman Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)46SCL385SAT

..... target company's shares it cannot be inferred that in 1993 he had acted in concert with krc.whether there was any concerted action by them subsequently will be examined at the appropriate stage in this order. based on the material available before ..... and shirish. but it is made clear that there is no evidence to hold that for acquisition of 27.21% shares of the target company on 14.12.1993 krc and mdc had acted in concert. in my view it was an acquisition made by krc not with mdc. but the evidence shows that in subsequent acquisition krc had co-operated with ..... mdc is the maternal uncle of krc is also of not much help in this regard. there is nothing on record to show that on 14.12.1993 mdc was an acquirer or a person acting in concert with krc for the purpose of acquiring the shares of the target company. from his subsequent conduct or involvement after 2 years in acquiring .....

Dr. Vijay Mallya Vs. the Chairman, Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)46SCL517SAT

..... control of the appellant has not been disputed. the fact that mcdowell is also a company under the control of the appellant remains undisputed. in december 1993 the appellant had transferred approximately 27% of his shareholding (held in the name of various investment companies) in the target company to kishore chhabria group ..... . normally voluntary acquisitions attract compliance of the regulations. this view is fortified from the wording of the definition of the expression "acquirer" and "persons acting in concert" in the 1994 regulations. regulation 14 of the 1994 regulation also supports the view that only voluntary acquisitions are governed by the regulations. ..... benefit of public offer has to be available to all the shareholders irrespective of the size of their holding, except the acquirers and the persons acting in concert. this position has been clearly stated by bhagwati committee in its report that the regulations for substantial acquisition of shares and takeovers should .....

Samir C. Arora Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)59SCL96SAT

..... as knowledge of the company (l&t) applying the principle to this effect laid down in english case el ajou vs dollar land holdings plc. (1993) bclc 735: (1993) 2 all er 717 (cl.d) and followed by the hon'ble supreme court of india in barium chemicals ltd vs company law board (air ..... regulations, 1995. these regulations forbid a person from entering into transactions in securities with the intention of artificially affecting the prices of securities or indulging in acts calculated to create a false or misleading appearance of trading or any non-genuine transactions not intended to effect transfer of beneficial ownership. the evidence cited in ..... 6. activities like insider trading, fraudulent trade practices and professional misconduct are absolutely detrimental to the interests of ordinary investors and are strongly deprecated under the sebi act, 1992 and the regulations made there under. no punishment is too severe for those indulging in such activities. for the same reason, charges must be .....