Skip to main content

Wilful defaulters to face curbs on fund mop-up from capital market

To sternly deal with wilful defaulters, Sebi today decided to impose restrictions on such entities with respect to raising funds from capital markets.

Such measures are expected to further enhance the protection of investors in the securities market.

As part of new norms, the watchdog will impose restrictions on companies, promoters, and directors that are categorised as a 'wilful defaulter' from accessing the capital markets.

"The Board approved the proposal to review the policy in respect of restricting an issuer company/its promoter/ directors, categorized as wilful defaulter, from raising capital after going through the public consultation process," Sebi said in statement after the board meeting.

At present, Sebi norms bar wilful defaulters from issuing convertible debt instruments. However, there is no restriction on such entities from raising funds from the capital market by way of public or rights issues, among others

Before finalising stricter regulations to deal with wilful defaulters, Sebi is expected to gather views from various stakeholders. The matter would also be discussed in the Primary Market Advisory Committee (PMAC).

The approval comes at a time when the amount of bad loans is on the rise in the banking system, mainly due to higher number of wilful defaulters.

To tighten the regulatory noose around wilful defaulters, the Reserve Bank has suggested to Sebi that such entities should be prevented from raising funds through capital markets.

Meanwhile, the government is planning to come out with a separate Bill in Parliament to deal with instances of wilful defaults in payment of bank loans.

Stringent action against the wilful defaulters in terms of attachment of properties under Sarfaesi Act (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act), change in management and other legal action against the promoters, among others, are under consideration.

Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-19/news/56265873_1_wilful-defaulters-regulatory-noose-sarfaesi-act

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...