Skip to main content

Withdrawal of the public offer to acquire shares

In Pramod Jain Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India,  the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was :-

(i) To what extent is the timeline laid down under the Takeover Regulations required to be adhered to and effect of delay by SEBI in the present case?

(ii) To what extent unilateral action of the target company in dealing with the property of the company after a hostile public offer is made furnish cause of action to the acquirers to withdraw the public offer and whether in the present case, decision not permitting withdrawal of public offer is justified?

The Hon'ble court held that :-

i) The withdrawal has to be dealt with under Regulation 27, as held by this Court. The general principle is that public offer once made cannot be withdrawn. Exception to the rule is the specified situations under the Regulation as laid down by this Court in above decisions particularly in Nirma Industries Limited (Supra). In the present case, though SEBI was not justified in causing delay in giving its comments on public offer, this by itself is not enough to justify withdrawal from public offer so long as the case does not fall under Regulation 27. First question is answered accordingly.

ii) There is no justification for automatic withdrawal from public offer without clear prejudice to the acquirer to the extent of rendering the carrying out of public offer impossible. In the facts of the present case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the SEBI and the SAT that request for withdrawal from public offer was not justified.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

A liquidator must pay GST on sale of assets of a defunct company

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that a National Company Law Tribunal appointed liquidator must have the GST registration till all liabilities cease to exist and that the liquidator must pay goods and services tax (GST) on sale of assets of a defunct company under liquidation, as the sale is effectively supply of goods. 
Post a Comment
Read more