Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Nirvana Holdings Private Limited vs Sebi on 8 September, 2011

Vakrangee Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi on 8 June, 2021

In the circumstances, relying on the decisions of Bhavesh Pabari vs. Adjudicating Officer, SEBI, MANU/SC/0296/2019, Pooja Vinay Jain vs. SEBI, appeal no.152 of 2019 decided on 17th March, 2020, SEBI vs. Akshaya, Kosha Investment Ltd. vs. SEBI, M/s. Nirvana Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI, (2011) SAT 9 137, Swedish Match AB & Anr. vs. SEBI & Anr. MANU/SC/0693/2004 he submitted that the appeal be dismissed.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T Agarwala - Full Document

M/S. Therm Flow Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi on 1 May, 2019

Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the appellant now does not 6 dispute that the acquisition of 0.30 percent of the shares had triggered Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 3(3) of the Takeover Regulations though the sale and purchase of shares was between the promoters through open market. He however submitted that the considering the nature and extent of the transaction that the same was between the promoters and only to the extent of 0.30 percent, the WTM ought to have taken route of directing to deposit the amount of Rs.51,000/- to the Investor Protection and Education Fund as established by SEBI as per the provisions of Rule 32(1)(b) instead of issuing directions to make public announcement to acquire shares or to pay interest as detailed above. He submitted while the WTM has placed reliance on the decision Nirvana (supra), this decision in the said case is already stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Ferryden International Ltd. & Anr. vs Sebi on 12 May, 2023

11. The CGM has directed the appellants to make an open offer considering Regulation 44 of the SAST Regulations and relying upon a decision of this Tribunal in Nirvana Holdings P. Ltd. vs. SEBI, Appeal No.31 of 2011 decided on 8th September, 2011, wherein this Tribunal held that whenever an acquirer violates Regulations 10, 11 and 12 of the SAST 8 Regulations by not making a public announcement then the acquirer should be directed to comply with the provisions by making a public announcement. Based on this order, the CGM has directed the appellants to make an open offer under Regulation 44.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Sbec Systems (India) Ltd. vs Sebi on 29 January, 2020

It is however an admitted fact that the Appellant nos.5 and 6 had acquired the additional shares without following the provisions of the SAST Regulations, 2011 as detailed supra. The issue is as to whether these Appellant nos.5 and 6 can be directed to make public announcement to acquire shares of the target Company in accordance with the provisions of the Takeover Regulations, 2011. The WTM relying on the ratio of Nirvana Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI Appeal no.31 of 2011 decided on 8th September, 2011 held that such a direction would be a normal rule and having deviation from the same can be permitted only if issuance of such a direction is not for protection of the securities market or is not for the protection of interest of investors. The learned counsel for the appellant however pointed out that the effect and operation of the order in Nirvana is stayed by the Supreme Court. It was submitted by the appellant that even Nirvana does not declare that a sole available mode would be a direction to make a public announcement ignoring other 18 alternatives provided by Regulation 32 of the SAST Regulations, 2011.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1