Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
(e)(1) clearly provides that this expression includes persons who
agree to cooperate with each other to acquire shares/voting
rights in a target company or control over the target company
pursuant to a formal or informal understanding between them,
directly or indirectly. Thus, the definition is wide enough and
gives ample scope to persons to act in concert as one unit for
the purpose of acquisition of shares/voting rights. Further,
Regulation 2(e)(2) also enumerates various persons who could
act in concert and they, inter alia, include a company, its
holding company, a subsidiary, directors, mutual fund with
sponsor or trustee, foreign institutional investors, merchant
bankers, so on and so forth. In this context, if we look at the new
SAST Regulations, 2011, we note that Regulation 3(3)
specifically provides that acquisition of shares by any person
within the meaning of sub-regulations 3(1) and 3(2) would be
attracting the obligation to make an open offer for acquiring
shares of the target company irrespective of its aggregate
shareholding with persons acting in concert if the shareholding
of such individual person exceeds the threshold limit prescribed
by regulation 10. It is pertinent to note that such a specific and
unambiguous provision making an individual liable to make a
public offer in case the individual shareholding increases
during the course of the acquisition even while acting in concert
with other persons is conspicuously missing in the SAST
Regulations, 1997. KLL was, therefore, not required to make a
public offer and the finding in the Impugned Order qua
appellant no. 3, i.e., KLL is hereby set aside. At any rate, since
the amendment of the Takeover Code and the inclusion of
regulation 3(3) in the SAST Regulations, 2011 the discussion
regarding the applicability of regulation 10 of the SAST
Regulations, 1997 has been rendered academic. Having said
that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, KLL
cannot be called upon to make an open offer by applying
regulation 3(3) of the new Takeover Code retrospectively."