Advanced Search Options
SEBI - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 19 of 19 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (10) TMI 689 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether the Board obliged to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner while considering an exemption application under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations, 2014 - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position that the requirement of compliance with the principle of natural justice can vary in different situations and conditions. Even where situations where principles of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing, it does not in all circumstances mean a personal hearing. A “reasonable opportunity of being heard” to the applicant before deciding exemption application. Therefore whenever it is found necessary to provide for an opportunity, SEBI has expressly incorporated it in such provisions. No such stipulation is found in the Regulation at hand. Apprehension expressed by the S....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 427 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Credit Rating Rationales - factors required to be considered by ICRA while deciding the rating - praying for a decree of declaration, declaring the Credit Rating Rationales dated 24th April, 2020 and 30th April, 2020 passed by the defendant or any other similar credit rating rationale downgrading the plaintiff’s credit rating from BBB+ (stable outlook) to BBB (negative outlook) as null, void, unenforceable and ineffective - also seeks decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to withdraw the said credit rating rationales from the physical as well as electronic records of the defendant including on the world wide web - charge of Violation of rating methodologies or the CRA Regulations or the Master Circular - Whether the defendant-ICRA has a right to publish the rating despite being objected to by the plaintiff/JPL? HELD....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 559 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of the Writ Petition - whether IGRP of the First Respondent has jurisdiction to re-examine the complaint of the Third Respondent pursuant to the direction issued by the Second Respondent after having arrived at the conclusion that the admissible claim of the Third Respondent against the Petitioner was 'NIL' and relegated the parties to take further course of action under the Exchange Regulations in the earlier order dated 18.10.2016, which has attained finality having remained unchallenged in the manner recognized by law - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any doubt that the attempt to re-examine the complaint of the Third Respondent against the Petitioner by IGRP of the First Respondent without any specific provision to that effect in IGRM devised by the Second Respondent in Circular No. CIR/MRD/ICC/30/2013 dated 26.09........ + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 1201 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Insider trading in the scrips of NDTV - principal allegation in the impugned notice is that the petitioners, being promoters, and qualifying as insiders, traded in the shares of NDTV while in possession of UPSI - calling upon the petitioners before us to show cause as to why directions under section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 including direction for the disgorgement of illegal gains be not issued against the petitioners for the aforementioned alleged violations of the SEBI Act, 1992 and PIT Regulations - HELD THAT:- We should allow the petition to be prosecuted as its obvious purpose is to delay the adjudication of the show-cause notice. It is not as if the petitioners cannot appear before SEBI without prejudice to their rights and contentions and complaint that they were not provided full, free and unhind....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 593 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Transaction on the exchange - whether petitioner’s transactions were not through the exchange? - alternative remedy before the Securities Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Shares were transferred from the applicant’s account to broker account, which the broker did not return. It is further pointed out that there was no trade executed on the exchange. The transaction is therefore, construed as a loan transaction and therefore, not recommended for payment. This recommendation of the Committee was accepted by Respondent No.3 and the claim of the petitioner was accordingly rejected. We do not find that the Respondent No.3 has committed any error. It may be that the previous Circulars issued by the SEBI from time to time, do not specifcally include a clause that in case of transaction not executed through the platform of BSE, the cl....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Application for settlement rejected on the ground of delay which is not condoned - eligible reasons for delay - Contravention of non-disclosure of tax demand - violation of certain provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 alleging certain non-disclosures - HELD THAT:- Sufficient grounds were made out for condonation of delay. It may be that from the date of second show-cause notice, the period of delay was substantial. Mere number of days of delay would not decide the sufficiency of cause made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. In the present case, it was pointed out that there was legal doubt whether once the company has been visited with penalty, subsequently show-cause notice can be issued against the directors of the company. Keeping the said l....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 974 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Buyback of shares at a grossly understated valuation - breach of the minimum public share holding requirement as specified in Rule 19(2) and Rule 19 (A) of the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Rule 1957 - grievance of the petitioners that the process of buyback is being undertaken when investigation in respect of the promoters of respondent No.2 is pending - Whether the Circular dated July 25, 2017 issued by the SEBI is non-est in law? - HELD THAT:- Vide the said circular SEBI permitted a Company to buy-back the shares so as to provide an exit to the public shareholders. At the outset, it must be stated that the circular has been challenged after two years of its coming into existence. Within these two years, it has been made operational / implemented. It is quite late in the day for the petitioners to challenge the circular on the grou....... + More
- 2019 (4) TMI 1090 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Compounding in proceedings - consent of respondent to permit compounding - Compounding at the initial stage or at the final stage - Whether object of the SEBI Act would be lost if compounding is permitted by this Court, as the allegations levelled against petitioner are of artificially jerking the price of the share of petitioner’s company? - HELD THAT:- No doubt, that petitioner had filed an application for compounding way back in the year 2013 and it remained pending, but now, the proceedings before the trial court have reached the stage of final arguments. Compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged, but not at the final stage. The object of the SEBI Act has to be kept in mind. A stable and orderly functioning of the securities market has to be ensured. It will not be in the interest of justice to discharge the accused ....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 887 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Declaration or branding of shell company - non issue of notice and to have heard petitioner - maintainability of the writ petition -- authorisation of petitioner No.2 to initiate legal action on behalf of petitioner No.1 - delegation of authority -petitioner No.1 being under the corporate insolvency resolution process and resolution professional having been appointed by the Tribunal, petitioner No.2 has no locus or authority to represent petitioner No.1 and to file the writ petition - HELD THAT:- In the case of petitioner No.1, the circumstances and the context in which it has been declared as a shell company is a virtual condemnation but it is a condemnation without a hearing. That apart, there is also the question of the State or its agencies using an expression which is not defined in any law. Objective of the SEBI Act is to promote or....... + More
- 2019 (2) TMI 1044 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Determination of offer price in accordance with Regulation 8 (2) (c) of SAST Regulations, 2011 - Appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal - Offer Price of ₹ 61.73 per share, as being offered by the LIC - Held that:- In the present case, the shares of the target company i.e. IDBI are listed on Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) and National Exchange of India Ltd. (NSC). Union of India is presently in the control of the target company. LIC was holding 67,36,20,000 shares in the target company, representing 14.90% of the voting rights in the target company, as a public shareholder of the target Company. The Board of Directors of the target company in their meeting held on 4.10.2018, authorized the issuance and allotment of equity shares aggregating upto 51% of the fully diluted voting share capital to LIC by way of a preferential issu....... + More
- 2018 (12) TMI 1685 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exit option to stock exchanges that had been de-recognized or had become non-operational - petitioners claim that in terms of a Circular dated 10.10.2016 BNL could either raise capital for listing on a Nation-wide Stock Exchange or provide an exit to the investors as specified in Annexure-A to the said Circular. Therefore, removal of BNL from BSE Dissemination Board is contrary to the Circular dated 10.10.2016 - DSE was derecognised on 19.11.2014 and on 13.07.2015, DSE sent BNL on the Dissemination Board of BSE. In the meanwhile, on 19.02.2015, BNL was listed on the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). It is stated that BNL sent several communications stating that it was not required to be placed on the Dissemination Board of BSE as it was listed on a recognized exchange, namely, CSE HELD THAT:- According to BNL, it had secured the listing on C....... + More
- 2018 (11) TMI 1635 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Petitioner seeking adjournment - HELD THAT:- As petitioner seeks an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel has undergone Angioplasty surgery recently. In the meanwhile, respondents shall file their counter affidavits within four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be also filed before the next date of hearing.
- 2018 (11) TMI 1586 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Determination of offer price of shares - price per share as computed on 18.07.2018/8.08.2018, which according to the petitioner are dates on which the respondent no.2 Life Insurance Corporation of India Bar and Bench (LIC) had agreed to acquire further shares in IDBI Bank Ltd. - petitioner’s contention is that LIC and IDBI Bank Ltd. have violated the provisions of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 thereby benefiting LIC - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a complaint before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Learned counsel for SEBI states that the complaint, if any, made by the petitioner would be examined and the necessary decision would be taken. In view of this statement, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition except to direct that SEBI treat the present petition as a complaint and take an appropriate decision within a period of two weeks from today. It is so directed.
- 2018 (10) TMI 1684 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Stay of show cause - appropriatness for the petitioner to give reply to the show cause notices - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is required to reply to the show cause notice to enable the respondent No.1 pass a final order against which the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the SAT. We have been informed one of the noticee has already approached the SAT. That insofar as the subsequent notices are concerned, we agree with the submission of Mr. Mehta, appropriate for the petitioner is to give reply to the said notices. In any case, if any order is passed to the prejudice of the petitioner, remedy is for the petitioner to approach the SAT. The Court is not inclined to entertain this application, the same is dismissed.
- 2017 (11) TMI 1802 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Grant in principle approval for delisting of the equity shares refused - Is a decision of a Stock Exchange refusing to grant in principle approval to an application for voluntary delisting of shares from such Stock Exchange appealable under the provisions of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956? - maintainability of petition - denial appealable under Section 21A(2) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 - Petitioners have statutory alternative remedy available - HELD THAT:- Section 23L on the other hand relates to an appeal in respect of an order or decision of a recognised Stock Exchange or an adjudicating officer or by SEBI passed or taken under Section 4B or Section 23I(3) of the Act of 1956. These differences allow one to infer that they operate on different fields. Provisions of Section 23L are not attracted to an ....... + More
- 2017 (1) TMI 1656 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Scheme of arrangement and amalgamation - freezing order of June 4, 2013 passed by SEBI in respect of such part of the promoters’ shareholding in the amalgamated company that exceeds 75% of the paid-up capital by treating the shares held by the trust to be a part of the promoters’ quota, till such time that the minimum public shareholding was achieved by the amalgamated company - According to SEBI, the public holding of shares in any listed company may not go below 25% of its paid-up capital - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that 4.32% of the paid-up capital in DPSCL is held by members of the public who have no connection with the promoters. For the public shareholding in the amalgamated company to reach the 25% mark, a further 20.68% of the shares in DPSCL has to be offered to the public by some transparent mechanism so that t....... + More
- 2015 (8) TMI 1502 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appropriate final orders after considering the reply given already - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order impugned would show that it is prima facie in nature. The enquiry is almost completed except filing written submissions. In a matter of this nature, touching upon Revenue and technical aspects involving economy, this Court is expected to adopt a dignified reluctance to leave the issues open to be decided by the statutory authority. Thus without going into the merits of the Case, this Court directs the first respondent to pass appropriate final orders after considering the reply given already and to be given in the form of written submission within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to give the written submissions to the first respondent within a period of one week from t....... + More
- 2000 (6) TMI 805 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ..... act in good faith and it must act reasonably." 51. In my considered opinion, the legal situation as projected by the Delhi High Court and the apex court would fully apply to the present case also. 52. In the light of the above principles, if we look at the facts of the present case, I take the view that the respondent has acted in good faith and reasonably within the limits of the authority through the mandates given to the respondents and the regulations framed thereof. 53. Therefore, I do not find merit in any of the contentions urged by the counsel for the applicant and, consequently, the application in O.A. No. 75 of 2000 is dismissed and A. No. 851 of 2000 is allowed. 54. However, it shall be stated that the observation of mine made above would confine to the disposal of this application alone; and it may not have any bearing on the decision to be taken by the court at the time of trial on the basis of the issues to be framed in the suit. 55. O.A. 75/2000 dismissed.
- 1998 (11) TMI 696 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ard, by way of interim measures, pending inquiry. The same is intended for the protection of the interests of the investors and the securities markets. 29. The impugned orders, in our prima facie view, are fully justified. The petitioners, in the circumstances, are not entitled to interim reliefs claimed in the petition. Ad interim orders passed on November 1, 1998, and continued by an order passed on November 3, 1998, are vacated. 30. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners apply for stay of the present orders, as also for continuation of the aforesaid ad interim orders. Counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the same. 31. Having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the petitioners, for a period of four weeks from today, to trade in shares and securities other than BPL, Videocon, Sterlite and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. The petitioners' during the aforesaid period of four weeks will not trade in the aforementioned shares and securities.