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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more