2008 (6) TMI 630 - AT - Companies Law

SEBI Upheld Decision on Offer Withdrawal Appeal, Emphasizes Regulation Compliance

Nirma Industries Limited and Nirma Chemical Works Limited Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India

The Tribunal upheld SEBI's decision to refuse withdrawal of a public offer, dismissing the appeal. SEBI declined the withdrawal request, stating the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the refusal by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to allow withdrawal of the public offer under Regulation 27(1)(d) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997.2. Interpretation of Regulation 27(1)(d) of the takeover code.3. Alleged violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the refusal by SEBI to allow withdrawal of the public offer:The appellants challenged SEBI's refusal to allow withdrawal of the open offer made by them. The appellants had invoked the pledge on shares of the target company due to non-redemption of premium notes and subsequently made a public announcement to acquire further shares as required by the takeover code. They later sought to withdraw the offer citing special circumstances, including financial instability and embezzlement within the target company, which they claimed were discovered post-announcement. SEBI declined the request, stating that the appellants should have conducted due diligence before acquiring the shares and that the circumstances cited did not merit withdrawal under Regulation 27(1)(d). The Tribunal agreed with SEBI, noting that the appellants were aware of several adverse facts about the target company at the time of the public announcement and had taken a business decision with open eyes.2. Interpretation of Regulation 27(1)(d) of the takeover code:Regulation 27(1) of the takeover code states that a public offer, once made, shall not be withdrawn except under specific circumstances, including statutory approval refusal, death of the sole acquirer, or 'such circumstances as in the opinion of the Board merit withdrawal.' The Tribunal emphasized that these exceptions should be strictly construed. The general words in Clause (d) must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses, meaning they should be limited to circumstances analogous to those making it impossible to complete the public offer. The Tribunal held that the special circumstances cited by the appellants did not make it impossible for them to carry out the public offer and thus did not fall within the scope of Regulation 27(1)(d).3. Alleged violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing:The appellants argued that SEBI violated the principles of natural justice by not affording them a personal hearing before rejecting their request to withdraw the public offer. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the appellants had ample opportunity to present their case through written communications. The Tribunal cited the legal principle that personal hearings are not mandatory in every case where a quasi-judicial authority has to decide on an application. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of natural justice as the appellants had already presented their arguments in writing and SEBI had considered these before making its decision.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding SEBI's decision to refuse the withdrawal of the public offer. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the interpretation of Regulation 27(1)(d) and the alleged violation of natural justice. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.