Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.90 seconds)
Documents citing K.K. Modi vs Securities Appellate Tribunal on 5 November, 2001

Bikramjit Ahluwalia vs Sebi on 20 November, 2017

29. We find that the facts of the case in Modipan, K. K. Modi and Nikhil Mansukhani (supra) are similar to each other inasmuch as there were disputes, differences and litigations between two promoter groups and, therefore, the two group of promoters, though they continued to be promoters could not be said to be acting in concert with each order. Whereas, in the present case, the appellant has not brought on record any 19 evidence of dispute between the promoters. In fact, the Appellant replied to the SCN on behalf of himself as promoter and part of the Promoter Group and on behalf of other promoters who were persons acting in concert as per said regulations and has admitted that the acquisition in issue had been made only with a view to consolidate the total promoter shareholding. In the circumstances, the aforesaid three judgements are distinguishable and do not support the case of the Appellant.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Mr. Veerendra Kumar Singh & Anr. vs Sebi on 19 January, 2023

In K.K. Modi vs. Securities Appellate Tribunal (2003) 113 Com. Cases 418 Bom., the Bombay High Court observed that a co-promoter of the target company, by reason of his being a co-promoter cannot be said to be a person acting in concert with the acquirer who also happens to be one of the promoters 22 of the target company, unless the evidence on record clearly establishes that the promoters share the common objective or purpose of substantial acquisition of shares of voting rights for gaining control over the target company with the acquirer.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Phiroze Sethna (P.) Ltd. vs Adjudicating Officer, Securities And ... on 15 November, 2007

14. We have heard the learned Counsel of both the sides. At the outset, it may be observed that even during the hearing of this appeal, there was no unanimity amongst the parties about the identity of the 'acquirer' and those acting in concert with him. Mr. Balsara the learned Counsel for the Board, relying upon the observations of the Bombay High Court, in para 8. in K.K. Modi's case (supra) wherein the learned Judges had observed, 'But, since acquirer includes within its definition persons acting in concert with him the question arises as to who are the persons acting in concert with him', argued that all the four appellants were acquirers in this case. We cannot agree with the learned Counsel. A perusal of this judgment clearly shows that the learned Counsel is reading the above observations out of context to claim that all the four appellants were acquirers for the purposes of Regulation 11(1) in the case before us. The High Court has not laid down as a general proposition of law that an acquirer includes within its definition 'person acting in concert' for the purposes of takeover Regulations. The definitions of the two terms 'acquirer' and 'person acting in concert' are separately given in the Takeover Regulations.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sms Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 27 October, 2003

200. With reference to the Appellant's reliance on Ashwin K. Doshi's case the learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal ordered further investigation in that case to ascertain whether control was really acquired by the acquirer with reference to certain facts, that in the instant case there is no dispute or paucity of facts and therefore no further investigation was considered necessary by SEBI. He submitted that the facts are now before the Tribunal as well and a decision based thereon can be taken by the Tribunal.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

In Re: Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Unknown on 22 April, 2004

41. This judgment was referred to by the objectors to explain the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI), read with the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997. No one has disputed the provisions as well as the principle laid down in that judgment refers to the SEBI law. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment deals with valuation report of scheme of arrangement.
Bombay High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Mcx Stock Exchange Limited vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India & ... on 14 March, 2012

89. A similar view has been taken in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in K.K. Modi vs. Securities Appellate Tribunal,36 where it has been held that "the mere fact that a person is a promoter does not make him an acquirer, unless it is shown that he either intends to acquire or is acting in concert with the acquirer for the acquisition of shares of the target Company."
Bombay High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 12 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Nikhil Mansukhani vs Sebi on 11 May, 2012

Learned counsel for the appellants have also referred to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of K. K. Modi vs. Securities Appellate Tribunal [(2003) 113 Com. Cases 148 Bom.] wherein the Court had observed that a co-promoter of the target company, by reason of his being a co-promoter cannot be said to be a person acting in concert with the acquirer who also happens to be one of the promoters of the target company, unless the evidence on record clearly establishes that the promoters share the common objective or purpose of substantial acquisition of shares or voting rights for gaining control over the target company with the acquirer. The question whether promoter is acting in concert with the acquirer, is a question of fact and the answer, therefore, must depend on the facts of each case.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1