company are allowed to acquire 2% of the equity as creeping acquisition without making a public offer. But the promoters chose to follow the public ... benefit the investors, and there is no bar on making a creeping acquisition in a fair and transparent manner to benefit the other shareholders, that
separate return of
allotment filed)
*Benchmark holding for considering creeping acquisition.
16. One of the arguments advanced by the Appellants is regarding the
unexplained ... recommendations of the Justice Bhagwati Committee Report of 1997,
creeping acquisition in any period of 12 months was permitted without
incurring the obligation of making
made an
open offer seeks to acquire further shares within the creeping acquisition limit provided
under regulation 11(1) of the regulations. So the provisions ... short, this is not
a case of creeping acquisition. Regulation 20A deals with acquisition price under creeping
acquisition route provided under regulation
creeping acquisitions upto 2% during any continuous period of 12 months in terms of Regulation 11 of the 1997 Regulations. The IMFA creeping acquisition ... subsequent co-operation for some further acquisition would not be material for the previous acquisition, if the previous acquisition is impugned.
26. The position
acting in concert and that the same was within the then creeping acquisition limit of 10% under regulation 11(1) of the Regulations ... were to be amended with effect from October, 2002 bringing the creeping acquisition limit down from 10% to 5%. Faced with the recommendation
regulation 11(1) (relating to the then available "creeping acquisition" of 10% or more of the voting powers in the target company ... acquisition of the aforesaid shares was under the then existing "creeping acquisition" limit of 10% in terms of sub-regulation (1) of regulation
appellants duly replied clarifying the facts and background pertaining
to the creeping acquisition limit of 5% under Regulation 11 of the
SAST Regulations on March ... appellants to make a consolidated
open offer for the alleged creeping acquisition that took place in the
financial year
31st
January, 2020. It was also alleged that there was no
creeping acquisition beyond five percent and,
consequently, there was no violation of Regulation ... support of his submission on the issue that there was
no creeping acquisition the learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon the decision
which is allegedly in excess of 5% permissible creeping
acquisition limit available to us for the Financial year 2008-09.
The proposed disinvestment ... takeover code got
triggered because the appellant crossed the permissible creeping acquisition limit
of 5 per cent in a financial year and not having come
amended on 28.10.1998. By this amendment
the threshold for application of creeping acquisition was increased from
10% - 51% to 15% -75% and the creeping acquisition ... than Rs.1 crore, amendments relating to Takeover Regulations raising
the creeping acquisition trigger from 2% to 5% was made in October
