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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more