Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
95 judgments · newest first · showing 1–95
The applicant, Vaishali Anil Tikam, sought discharge from SEBI Special Court proceedings, contending that the summons served under SEBI Rules was invalid because it was not delivered to him personally and the acknowledgment due (AD) card was produced after a 20‑year delay. SEBI argued that the …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) sought leave to appeal an order dated 30 March 2024 that acquitted Jayesh Himatlal Mehta of an offence under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act, 1992. The acquittal was based on the Sessions Court’s finding that SEBI had not proved service of the …
Sunil Kumar Goyal filed a criminal writ petition challenging a SEBI Special Judge's order that issued process against him under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act for failing to pay a penalty. The petitioner argued that, under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, an accused …
The applicant Arvind Kumar B Shah filed a discharge application in a criminal case before the Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. The Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application on 16 November 2024 without addressing the applicant’s preliminary objection that Sections …
The Bombay High Court considered ITC Limited’s writ petition challenging two communications issued by the Metropolitan Stock Exchange (MSE) and Jupitice Justice Technology Private Ltd. under SEBI’s Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) framework. ITC argued that MSE lacked jurisdiction because its …
The petitioner, a former stock broker, challenged SEBI's demand for registration fees and the subsequent recovery of Rs.38.63 lakh by the Delhi Stock Exchange. He filed Appeal No. 298 of 2019 before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which was disposed of together with five other appeals on the …
The Supreme Court examined appeals by Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company, Kotak Trustee and senior executives challenging SEBI's penalties for alleged violations of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. The appellants argued that their actions—extending the maturity of zero‑coupon …
The petitioners, former SEBI officers and later BSE officials, challenged an order of a Special Judge that had directed registration of an FIR against them under IPC sections 166A(b), 120B, 420, 409 and PC Act sections 7 and 13 for allegedly failing to prevent the illegal listing of Cals Refineries …
Dr. Rashmi Saluja, former Executive Chairman of Religare Enterprises Ltd., challenged the registration of FIR No.355/2024 and the ECIR/MBZO‑I/27/2024 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act (PMLA). She argued that the FIR was barred by special statutes …
The applicant, Pramod N. Rasal, filed a criminal revision seeking discharge from the trial after an order refused to discharge him. While the revision was pending, the Special Court under the SEBI Act acquitted him on 29 January 2024, a judgment that was placed on record. The court noted that the …
The appellants, promoter‑directors of a listed finance company, were found to have purchased shares in violation of SEBI's insider‑trading regulations and were penalised by an SEBI Adjudicating Officer on 28‑08‑2014. The penalty orders required payment within 45 days and were affirmed by the Supreme …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued show‑cause notices to Vital Communications Ltd (VCL) and related entities for misleading advertisements, leading to a series of orders: a 2008 restraint order, a 2014 order imposing market bans, and a 2018 disgorgement order. The Securities …
The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 filed by the promoters of the Sai Prasad Group seeking the liquidation of the companies' immovable assets to refund investors. The petitioners alleged that SEBI's efforts to auction the properties were inadequate and that the investors …
Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. (complainant) entered into Inter‑Corporate Deposit agreements with Morgan Securities & Credits Ltd., pledging shares as security. When the value of the pledged shares fell, the lender invoked the pledge and sold the shares to itself and its group companies in 2001. The …
The appellant, GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.), sought exemption from SEBI registration fees on the ground that it had acquired the Calcutta Stock Exchange membership of individual broker Srikant Mantri and claimed continuity of fee payment under paragraph 4 of Schedule III of …
The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions filed by Vishal Tiwari and others seeking redress for massive losses suffered by investors after the share price of the Adani Group collapsed following a Hindenburg Research report. The petitions alleged that the Adani companies had manipulated share …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a notice to Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd (DCHL) and its Company Secretary, V. Shankar, imposing a Rs 10 lakh penalty for alleged violations in a Rs 270 crore share buy‑back. The SEBI Whole Time Member held the Company Secretary liable for not …
IFB Agro Industries, a listed company, alleged that SICGIL India Ltd. and related persons acquired more than 5% of its shares from the open market without making the disclosures required under SEBI's Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover (SAST) Regulations and Insider Trading (PIT) …
The Supreme Court examined whether a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (KPTCL) and JSW Energy Ltd (formerly Jindal Thermal Power Co Ltd) was a "concluded contract" under the proviso to Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, …
The Supreme Court examined whether a stock broker must obtain a separate SEBI certificate of registration for each stock exchange where he operates, or whether a single registration suffices, and whether the ad valorem fee prescribed in Schedule III must be paid for each registration. The Court held …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) appealed against the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s order that exonerated Abhijit Rajan, former Chairman and Managing Director of Gammon Infrastructure Projects Ltd (GIPL), from liability for insider trading. The issue was whether the Board’s …
The Supreme Court upheld a penalty of Rs 1 crore each on DKG Buildcon Private Ltd. and R.C. Gupta & Co. for willfully failing to comply with multiple SEBI summons issued during an investigation into share‑price manipulation of Shonkh Technology International Ltd. (STIL) and the alleged facilitation …
Kavi Arora, former MD and CEO of Religare Finvest Ltd., was served a Show Cause Notice by SEBI alleging diversion of funds. He petitioned the High Court seeking the documents relied upon by SEBI and a copy of the opinion formed under Rule 3 of the SEBI Adjudication Rules. SEBI refused to disclose …
Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd (RCFL) issued non‑convertible debentures and defaulted in March 2019. The RBI issued a prudential framework requiring lenders to enter into an inter‑creditor agreement (ICA) before a resolution plan, and SEBI later issued a circular on 13 Oct 2020 standardising the …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) filed a criminal complaint against Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) alleging violation of Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956 for alleged fraudulent allotment of shares. SEBI’s investigation report of 2005 was inconclusive, prompting SEBI to obtain …
The Supreme Court examined two appeals filed by SEBI against Sunil Krishna Khaitan and others and Madhuri S. Pitti, challenging SEBI's show‑cause notices and directions under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997. The Court clarified that the term “acquirer” in …
MBL & Co Ltd was found by SEBI’s Whole Time Member (WTM) to have engaged in manipulative self‑trades, placing single‑share buy orders after large sell orders to artificially raise the price of Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. The WTM barred MBL from trading in its proprietary account for four years under …
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Balram Garg and related parties against SEBI’s orders that they had engaged in insider trading. SEBI had alleged that the appellants were "connected persons" or "immediate relatives" of the company’s chairman and MD and had traded on unpublished …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) restrained Mega Corporation Ltd, a listed radio‑taxi company, from accessing the capital market after observing an unusual surge in its share price and alleged profit manipulation. SEBI issued a show‑cause notice alleging violations of the SEBI …
The appellant, former MD and CEO of Ricoh India Ltd., was served a show‑cause notice by SEBI alleging violations of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations based on an investigation report. The appellant demanded the full investigation report, but SEBI claimed it was an internal document not subject …
Prakash Gupta, a director of Ideal Hotels & Industries Ltd, was prosecuted by SEBI for alleged price rigging and insider trading during the company's 1995 IPO. Gupta applied to have the offence under Section 24 of the SEBI Act compounded under Section 24A, but the trial judge and the Delhi High …
The Supreme Court examined the winding‑up of six open‑ended mutual‑fund schemes of Franklin Templeton, focusing on the interplay between SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, particularly Reg. 18(15)(c) and Regs. 39‑42. The Court held that when the trustees, by majority, decide to wind up a scheme …
The Supreme Court examined whether the term “consent of the unitholders” in Regulation 18(15)(c) of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 requires the approval of a majority of all unitholders or merely a majority of those who actually voted in the poll. The Court held that consent means the …
The Supreme Court examined proceedings initiated by the Forward Markets Commission (later merged with SEBI) against Neptune Overseas Ltd (NOL) and its director Kailash Ramkishan Gupta for alleged trading irregularities. A detailed show‑cause notice dated 21 June 2011 was served only on Gupta, and …
Rusoday Securities Ltd., a trading member of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), exceeded its gross exposure limits in 1997, leading the NSE to withdraw its trading facilities and later expel it for failing to maintain required capital deposits. The appellant challenged the validity of the NSE's …
The case concerned an appeal by SEBI against an order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal that set aside an ex‑parte interim order passed by SEBI’s Whole Time Member directing the respondent, the CEO and MD of Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, to deposit Rs 3.83 crore in an escrow account. SEBI alleged …
The Supreme Court examined whether a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in non‑metropolitan areas could entertain a secured creditor's application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for taking …
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 15‑J and 15‑A to 15‑HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 in a series of appeals arising from penalties imposed on Bhavesh Pabari, Shree Radhe and other respondents for violations of SEBI regulations. The principal issue was …
The Supreme Court examined the eligibility of ArcelorMittal India Private Ltd (AMIPL) and Numetal Ltd to submit resolution plans for Essar Steel India Ltd (ESIL) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the introduction of Section 29A. The Court held that disqualification under …
The Supreme Court examined multiple appeals arising from the Satyam scandal, where the appellant, Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju, a former executive and non‑executive director of Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL) and co‑brother of its chairman, was shown cause for insider trading under SEBI …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued show‑cause notices to Rakhi Trading and other traders for executing synchronized buy‑sell and reverse transactions in Nifty options that consistently yielded profit for one party and loss for the other without any material change in the …
The petitioners, Dushyant N. Dalal and his wife, were ordered by SEBI to disgorge unlawful gains of Rs.4.05 crore and pay a penalty of Rs.6 crore, with a debarment of seven years if unpaid. They challenged the SEBI order, arguing that interest could not be levied retrospectively under Section 28A of …
The appellants borrowed money from the respondent, securing the loan with seven immovable properties. Their loan account was declared a non‑performing asset and the parties’ contract contained an arbitration clause, leading the respondent to initiate arbitration while also issuing notices under …
The Supreme Court examined whether non‑intermediary front‑running—where a person receives confidential information about a forthcoming large block trade and trades ahead of it—constitutes a prohibited fraudulent or unfair trade practice under SEBI’s Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) filed criminal complaints against Classic Credit Ltd. and other private parties under the SEBI Act, 1992, which originally required trial before a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. The SEBI (Amendment) Act, 2002 …
Laurel Energetics Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) acquired 18% of Rattan India Infrastructure Ltd., the target company, in July 2014 at Rs 6.30 per share. In October 2015 it made an open offer to acquire the remaining shares at Rs 3.20 per share. SEBI held that the acquisition was not exempt under Regulation …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued an administrative circular under Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act to curb dematerialisation charges. National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) challenged the circular, arguing that it could not be appealed before the Securities Appellate …
The appellants Pramod Jain and others made a hostile public offer to acquire 25% of Golden Tobacco Ltd. and later sought to withdraw the offer, alleging that SEBI’s undue delay in approving their draft letter of offer allowed the target company to siphon assets and erode its net worth, defeating the …
The Supreme Court examined whether the directors of Gaurav Agrigenetics Ltd. violated Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act by operating a collective investment scheme without a registration certificate. It held that Section 12(1B) creates an absolute, mandatory bar for new operators from 25‑Jan‑1995 until …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) appealed against the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s (SAT) order that set aside penalties imposed on M/s Opee Stock‑Link Ltd. and others for illegal off‑market trading of IPO shares. The shares of Jet Airways India Ltd. and Infrastructure Development …
The appellants were penalised by SEBI for alleged insider‑trading violations involving small share transactions. They contended that the penalty was excessive because the default was merely technical, with no disproportionate gain, loss, or repetitive nature, and argued that Section 15A (as amended …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) appealed against several brokers and sub‑brokers, including Kishore R. Ajmera, for alleged manipulative and fraudulent trading in illiquid securities. The issues centered on whether the brokers could be held liable and penalised under the SEBI Act …
Gautam Kundu, chairman of Rose Valley, was arrested for alleged money‑laundering offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and related violations of the SEBI Act. He sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Calcutta High Court rejected the …
Premium Global Securities Pvt. Ltd. (PGSL) transferred its National Stock Exchange (NSE) trading membership from its predecessor, Premium Capital Market & Investments Ltd. (PCMIL), after SEBI’s Rule 8(1)(f) and 8(3)(f) of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Rules, 1957 barred a company from …
OPG Securities Private Ltd, a stock broker, challenged SEBI's demand for registration fees calculated on the basis of its total turnover for periods after 1 October 2006. The demand was based on the earlier Schedule III of the SEBI (Stock‑brokers and Sub‑brokers) Regulations, which used the previous …
The Supreme Court examined whether Magnum Equity Services Ltd., a corporate entity formed by converting a stock‑broking partnership, was entitled to a fee‑continuity exemption under Paragraph 1(4) of Schedule III of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub‑Brokers) Regulations, 1992, after three of its …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a summons on 23 July 2002 to Roofit Industries Ltd. demanding documents and information. The company failed to comply despite several extensions and a reminder dated 5 September 2002, leading the Adjudicating Officer to impose a penalty of Rs …
The appellant, a promoter, acquired more than 15% of a listed target company and made a public offer to buy remaining shares at Rs 8.75 per share. He had earlier bought back shares held by a state financial institution (HSIDC) at Rs 23.75 per share using post‑dated cheques, but failed to disclose …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) appealed against the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s (SAT) order that limited a stock broker’s "annual turnover" to the brokerage earned, thereby reducing the registration fee payable by ICAP India Pvt Ltd, a broker in the wholesale debt market. The …
The case concerned stock brokers who had converted their individual or partnership membership into a corporate entity before 1 April 1997 and sought the fee‑continuity benefit under paragraph 4 of Schedule III of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub‑Brokers) Regulations, 1992. SEBI denied the benefit, …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) appealed against the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s order directing SEBI to refund fees paid by M/s Prebon Yamane (India) Ltd (the Respondent). The dispute centered on whether the Respondent qualified for the "fee continuity" exemption under Clause …
Kosha Investments Ltd, having already held more than 15% of Snowcem India Ltd (SIL), acquired additional shares between June and August 1999 that exceeded the 5% threshold of the paid‑up capital in a financial year, but failed to make the public announcement mandated by SEBI (Substantial Acquisition …
The State of Tamil Nadu amended its Distillery Rules to raise the administrative service fee for industrial alcohol from Rs.0.50 to Rs.1 per bulk litre. The petitioners (industrial distilleries) challenged the increase, arguing that the fee must be based on a quid pro quo relationship between the …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) debarred Panasia Advisors Ltd. and its managing director for ten years, alleging that as lead managers they facilitated a fraudulent scheme involving Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) of six Indian companies, creating a false appearance of foreign …
The Supreme Court dealt with contempt petitions filed by SEBI against Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. and its promoters for failing to refund investors the amount collected through illegal Optional Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs). The Court noted repeated non‑compliance with its earlier …
Videocon International Ltd. appealed against SEBI's order that some of its second appeals to the High Court were not maintainable after the amendment of Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. The amendment, effective 29‑Oct‑2002, shifted the second appellate forum from the High Court to the Supreme Court and …
The Supreme Court considered applications filed by the contemnors, Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and Sahara Housing Investment Corp., who were in judicial custody for contempt after failing to comply with SEBI‑directed bail conditions requiring a deposit of Rs 10,000 crore, half in cash …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) found that Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and its affiliates had illegally raised public deposits through Optional Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) and ordered them to refund the amount with interest. The companies failed to comply …
The Supreme Court examined petitions seeking to shift investigation of the multi‑state chit‑fund (Ponzi) scam, which defrauded lakhs of depositors of roughly Rs 10,000 crore, from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The scam involved companies operating across West Bengal, …
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Subrata Roy Sahara challenging an order dated 4.3.2014 directing his arrest and detention for non-compliance of earlier orders to refund money collected through Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs). The Court held that the two Sahara …
The Supreme Court examined whether a voluntary open offer made by Akshya Infrastructure Ltd. under Regulation 11 of the SEBI Takeover Regulations could be withdrawn under Regulation 27 when the offer became economically unviable. The Court held that Regulation 27 applies equally to voluntary and …
The case concerned the sale of a mortgaged property by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the bank, as a secured creditor, had complied with Section 13(8) of the Act and Rules 8 and 9, which require a 30‑day individual notice and a public notice before any sale. It …
The petitioner challenged the appointment of U.K. Sinha as Chairman of SEBI on grounds that he failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of "high integrity" under Section 4(5) of the SEBI Act, alleging mis‑representation, irregular deputation, false declarations, and a conspiracy to secure his …
Nirma Industries Ltd. and its associate sought to withdraw a public open offer made under SEBI's Takeover Code after discovering alleged fraud and a sharp fall in the target company's share price. SEBI rejected the withdrawal request, and the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) upheld the rejection. …
The appellant, N. Narayanan, a whole‑time director and promoter of Mis Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd., was found to have participated in a scheme that inflated the company’s revenues, profits, security deposits and receivables, thereby creating artificiality in its financial statements. SEBI’s …
PGF Limited, which sold and developed agricultural land and ran joint‑venture schemes, was directed by SEBI to cease collecting money and to refund investors, on the ground that its activities constituted a collective investment scheme (CIS) under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act. PGF challenged the …
M/s Informetrics Valuation and Rating Pvt. Ltd. applied to SEBI for registration as a credit rating agency, submitting a chartered accountant's net‑worth certificate based on a bank’s confirmation rather than audited accounts of its promoter. SEBI demanded audited accounts of the promoter for the …
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd. against SEBI's order to refund over Rs. 17,400 crores collected through Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs). The Court held that the OFCDs were public issues, …
The State of Kerala issued a notification to declare certain lands as revenue forest, which the appellant's predecessor claimed title to. The Forest Settlement Officer rejected the claim, but the Additional District Judge allowed it on appeal under Section 11 of the Kerala Forest Act. The State …
Daiichi Sankyo acquired a controlling stake in Ranbaxy, which had earlier bought shares of Zenotech at Rs.160 per share. When Daiichi made a public offer to acquire Zenotech shares, it offered Rs.113.62 per share, citing the market price as the highest of the methods prescribed under Regulation …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a show‑cause notice and later a restraining order under Sections 11, 11(4)(b) and 11‑B of the SEBI Act, 1992, prohibiting Ajay Agarwal from associating with any corporate body and from dealing in securities for five years, based on alleged …
Mahesh Ratilal Shah filed a writ petition alleging that the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) had listed the shares of Presto Finance Ltd. despite fraudulent dealings, and that the BSE’s Rules and Bye‑laws, never published in the Gazette, were ultra vires the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. …
The respondents, Saikala Associates Ltd and others, acted as unregistered sub‑brokers in violation of Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act and Rule 3 of the Stock Brokers and Sub‑Brokers Rules, prompting SEBI to suspend their registration certificates. The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) altered the …
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 imposes a mandatory penalty for short levy or non‑levy of duty and whether mens rea is an essential element. The Court held that the provision creates a civil liability for breach of a statutory obligation and the …
The appellant, son of a deceased stock‑broker who was a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange, claimed that the partnership firm he joined should enjoy the "fee continuity benefit" under the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub‑Brokers) Regulations, 1992, arguing that the business continued under the same name …
The Supreme Court examined SEBI’s action against the promoters of Ritesh Polyster Ltd., whose 1995 public issue was found to be a fraudulent hoax. SEBI directed the promoters – including the father, his wife and two sons who were minors at the time – to disassociate from the capital market for ten …
The petitioners challenged the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Rules and Regulations, 1992 on the ground that they were not laid before both Houses of Parliament for the full thirty‑day period required by Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, because the Houses …
Ratnabali Capital Markets Ltd. (RCML) sought to claim fee‑continuity under a SEBI circular dated 30 September 2002, arguing that its merger with Ratnabali Securities Ltd. (RSL) was compelled by law because SEBI’s Gupta Committee required a net‑worth of Rs 3 crore to trade in derivatives. The merger …
The appellants challenged the price approved by SEBI for a public offer to acquire the minority shares of Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd., alleging that the valuation by the independent valuer did not comply with Regulation 20(5) of the Takeover Code. SEBI appointed an independent …
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) appealed against Shriram Mutual Fund and another respondent for repeatedly exceeding the 5% limit on transactions through associate brokers, violating Regulation 25(7)(a) of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, and failing to comply with the …
Technip SA and its French subsidiary Coflexip acquired a controlling stake in SEAMEC, an Indian company, prompting SEBI to invoke the Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover Regulations, 1997. SEBI held that French law governed the determination of when control was obtained, concluding that …
Swedish Match AB and its associated companies acquired a 74% shareholding in Wimco Ltd., a listed Indian company, by purchasing shares from Indian promoters at a price well above market value. The acquisition was done without making a public announcement as required under Regulation 10/11 of the …
The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising from SEBI’s direction that the acquirer of Colour‑Chem Ltd. pay interest to shareholders for the delay in making a public offer under the 1997 Takeover Regulations, as amended in 2002. The Board had directed a 15% per‑annum interest on the offer price …
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund, a SEBI‑registered domestic mutual fund, sought to issue a public fund scheme after obtaining SEBI approval for its draft scheme and advertising the issue. A prospective investor filed a petition before the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking an …
