Skip to main content

SEBI has no locus in Scheme Petition

Stock market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) does not have locus to intervene in a Scheme Petition under Sections (391 and 394) of Companies Act, the Bombay High Court has held in a recent judgment by Justice Kathawalla.

Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act deal with issues relating to merger, amalgamation, restructuring of companies.

SEBI had applied to the Bombay High Court to set aside the High Court’s earlier order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement and amalgamation in a matter relating to Ikisan Ltd and Kakinada Fertilizers . SEBI had contended in its application that a fraud had been perpetrated on the Court by suppression and/or misrepresentation of facts and documents relating to the court sanctioned composite scheme between Kakinada Fertilizers, erstwhile Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd (NFCL), Ikisan Ltd and Nagarjuna Oil Refinery Ltd (NORL). Under this composite scheme, the oil business of the erstwhile NFCL was demerged into NORL and the erstwhile NFCL together with its residual business and Ikisan were merged into the KFL.

SEBI had cited in its appeal the Supreme Court’s observations in the Sahara case wherein the apex court had said that SEBI had wide powers to take any actions/steps necessary for investor protection and for the development and regulation of the securities market and that SEBI’s powers are not fettered by any other law, including the Companies Act.

Turning down SEBI’s contention, Justice Kathawalla said that in his view, the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India are general in nature. He said in his order, “the observations in the Sahara judgment cannot be construed to have overruled the categorical finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the Sterlite case that SEBI cannot, as a matter of right, be heard in all scheme petitions coming up before the Court under Section 391 of the Act. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench in the Sterlite case, in my view, holds the field on this aspect and it cannot be said that the said finding has been set aside by the Supreme Court.”

Besides SEBI had in a case relating to MCX Stock Exchange Ltd, made a submission that a scheme under Section 391 binds the creditors and shareholders and cannot bind SEBI which does not in any event have locus in a Section 391 Petition.

If SEBI has no locus to appear in a Scheme Petition, SEBI can hardly be a “person aggrieved” who would be entitled to file a Petition seeking a review/recall of the order sanctioning the scheme, the court held.

Article referred: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/markets/stock-markets/sebi-has-no-locus-in-scheme-petition-under-sections-391-394-of-companies-act-high-court/article7689746.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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