Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.79 seconds)
Documents citing B.P. Plc. (Formerly B.P. Amoco) & Foseco ... vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India on 7 September, 2001

Rakesh Agrawal vs Securities Exchange Board Of India on 1 November, 2003

In B.P. Plc's case it was held that SEBI has the power to direct the payment of interest to aggrieved investors on a conjoint reading of the provisions of the said Regulation 44 and Section 11B of the said Act. Regulation 44 confers wide powers upon the board which include "taking action against the person concerned", in the interest of the securities market, that it is due to these wide powers conferred by Regulation 44 that it was held that SEBI has the power to award interest to the aggrieved investors.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sebi vs Ondel Nalco India Limited on 9 April, 2003

In this regard, the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in B.P. Plc case has held that " ........This is all the more abundantly clear from Regulation 14(3) mentions about the necessity of public announcement when "any such change or changes are decided to be made as would result in the acquisition of control over the Target company by the Acquirer". That is to say, when any such change is decided to be made, the same would result in acquisition or control, then public announcement will have to be made. Therefore, once a decision is taken, which would result in acquisition or control, then public announcement must precede such acquisition or control. That is the decision to later on result in acquisition or taking control."
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: Bihar Caustic And Chemicals Ltd., ... vs Unknown on 18 February, 2005

8. ORDER 8.1 In view of the findings made above and in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulations 44 (f) of the Regulations, I hereby direct the Acquirers, viz., Hindalco Industries Ltd. and Pilani Investments Corporation Ltd. to make public announcement as required under Chapter III of the Regulations taking June 18, 2002 i.e. the date on which HIL has expressed its willingness to the target company to subscribe to the unsubscribed portion in the rights issue, as the reference date for calculation of offer price. Once a decision is taken which results in acquisition of shares / voting rights or control, then public announcement must precede such acquisition or control. That is the decision that will later on result in acquisition or taking control. This view on the reference date is supported by the judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in B P Plc Vs. SEBI (2001) 24 SCL 469 (Bom). The public announcement shall be made within 45 days of passing of this order.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Agrawal vs Securities Exchange Board Of India on 3 November, 2003

In B.P. Plc's case it was held that SEBI has the power to direct the payment of interest to aggrieved investors on a conjoint reading of the provisions of the said Regulation 44 and Section 11B of the said Act. Regulation 44 confers wide powers upon the board which include "taking action against the person concerned", in the interest of the securities market, that it is due to these wide powers conferred by Regulation 44 that it was held that SEBI has the power to award interest to the aggrieved investors.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rhodia S.A. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 7 November, 2001

72. The learned senior counsel did not seriously press the challenge on SEBI's power to direct the appellant to pay interest to the shareholders of the Indian company, in view of the Tribunal's decision in B.P.Plc.'s case (formerly B.P. Amoco) (supra). The view held by the Tribunal in the said case upholding the SEBI's power to levy interest applies in equal force to this case also. However, the learned senior counsel had pointed out that in the said order the Tribunal had viewed that interest is the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of money belonging to another, and in this view of the matter the requirement of payment of interest should be only to those persons who were holding shares on 14-6-2000 and in a position to tender the same in case the appellant makes a public offer as directed by the SEBI. The learned senior counsel submitted that those who purchased shares after the due date for closure of the offer as specified by the SEBI have not suffered any such loss and any direction to pay interest to those shareholders also on those shares purchased after 14-6-2000, and tendered in an offer as required to be made by the impugned order would amount to unjust enrichment of those shareholders, I find some force in this argument. A person who was not holding shares and as a result not in a position to tender shares in a public offer which was required to be made by 14-6-2000 should not be entitled for any compensation for the delay involved in making the public offer and the consequential delay in the payment of the purchase consideration. He was not in a position to tender shares in response to the public offer had the appellant made the public offer at that point of time. Therefore, those persons who were holding shares of the Indian company as on 14-6-2000 and continue to be shareholders on the closure day of the public offer made in terms of the directions given by the SEBI vide the impugned order alone should be eligible to receive interest, in case the shares which he was holding on 14-6-2000 are tendered in response to the belated public offer. The impugned order stands modified to the said extent.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

In Re: Acquisition Of Shares/ Voting ... vs Unknown on 30 April, 2003

Here, it may be pertinent to mention that Securities Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 7/9/01 in the matter of B.P. Plc (formerly B.P. Amoco) & Foseco Plc Vs. SEBI has, inter alia , held that, "It may be noted that it is not incumbent on the Respondent to grant exemption just for asking. The decision normally depends on several factors including the interests of investors..........The exemption is to be granted depending on the facts and circumstances of each case."
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1