Skip to main content

Unlisted Indian Cos. allowed to raise capital abroad; extended relaxation up to two years from subsequent listing

ISSUE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY CONVERTIBLE BONDS AND ORDINARY SHARES (THROUGH DEPOSITARY RECEIPT MECHANISM) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME, 2013 - AMENDMENT IN PARAGRAPH 3
NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 684(E) [F.NO.4/13/2012-ECB], DATED 11-10-2013
Central Government hereby amend the Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds and Ordinary Shares (Through Depositary Receipt Mechanism) Scheme, 1993, namely:—
1. This Scheme may be called the issue of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds and Ordinary Shares (Through Depositary Receipt Mechanism) (Amendment) Scheme, 2013.
2. The Scheme shall be deemed to have come into force from the date of publication of Notification; and
3. In the "Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds and Ordinary Shares (Through Depositary Receipt Mechanism) Scheme, 1993;
In Paragraph 3(1)(B) the words "Unlisted Indian Companies Issuing Global Depository Receipts/Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds shall be required to simultaneously list in the Indian stock Exchanges(s)" shall be replaced by the following:
"Unlisted companies shall be allowed to raise capital abroad without the requirement of prior or subsequent listing in India initially for a period of two years subject to the following conditions:—
a. Unlisted companies shall list abroad only on exchanges in IOSCO/FATF compliant jurisdictions or those jurisdictions with which SRBI has signed bilateral agreements;
b. The Companies shall file a copy of the return which they submit to the proposed exchange/regulators also to SEBI for the purpose of PMI.A. They shall comply with SEBI's disclosure requirements in addition to that of the primary exchange prior to the listing abroad;
c. While raising resources abroad, the listing company shall be fully compliant with the FDI Policy in force;
d. capital raised abroad may be utilised for retiring outstanding overseas debt or for operations abroad including for acquisitions;
e. In case the funds raised are not utilised abroad as stipulated at d above, such companies shall remit the money back to India within 15 days and such money shall be parked only in AD category banks recognised by RBI and may be used domestically.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more