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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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