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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more