Service of show-cause notice and delayed public announcement under takeover rules drew divergent views on penalty and remand

Challenge to ex parte adjudication focused on whether show-cause notices were validly served and whether the penalty for delayed public announcement under the takeover regulations should stand. One view treated improper service as fatal, set aside the adjudication, and remitted the matter for fresh notices and hearing. Another view held that service by speed post was a recognised mode, proof of delivery existed, and the admitted delay in the public announcement justified affirming the penalty. The order reflects divergent reasoning on both service and compliance, and no clear majority outcome emerges.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte adjudication orders were sustainable in view of the challenge to service of show-cause notices, and whether the penalty for delay in making the public announcement under the takeover regulations was liable to be upheld.

Analysis: One view held that the notices had not been properly served, that the matter should be restored to the adjudicating officer, and that fresh notices should be issued and decided after granting an opportunity of hearing. Another view held that service by speed post was a recognised mode under the service regulations, that proof of delivery was available, and that the admitted delay in making the public announcement constituted a violation warranting affirmation of the penalty.

Conclusion: The members reached differing conclusions on the merits, and no clear majority outcome emerges from the order.

---