Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal quashes open offer order, dismisses heirs' liability. SEBI criticized for delay.</h1> <h3>Mr. Rajeev Bhanot, Mrs. Rekha Bhanot, Ms. Tania Bhanot, Ms. Aditi Bhanot, Mr. Arun Soni, Mrs. Roma Soni, Mr. Punit Soni, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Mrs. Shruti Sharma Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai.</h3> Mr. Rajeev Bhanot, Mrs. Rekha Bhanot, Ms. Tania Bhanot, Ms. Aditi Bhanot, Mr. Arun Soni, Mrs. Roma Soni, Mr. Punit Soni, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Mrs. Shruti ... Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing appeals.2. Requirement to make an open offer under SEBI Act and SAST Regulations.3. Liability of legal heirs for violations committed by deceased acquirers.4. Acting in concert by promoters.5. Inordinate delay in initiation of proceedings by SEBI.6. Legality of proceedings against deceased persons.7. Appropriateness of directions to make an open offer after 12 years.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeals:The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, allowing Misc. application nos. 337 and 360 of 2018 and 525 of 2019.2. Requirement to Make an Open Offer:The appeals were against a common order by SEBI's Whole Time Member (WTM) directing the acquirers, heirs of the deceased, and promoters of the target Company to make an open offer under sections 11 and 11 B of the SEBI Act, 1992, and relevant regulations of SAST Regulations, 1997 and 2011. The WTM found that the acquirers collectively acquired more than five percent of shares in the financial year 2005-06, triggering the requirement for an open offer, which they failed to make, resulting in liability for penal action.3. Liability of Legal Heirs for Violations Committed by Deceased Acquirers:The WTM concluded that the liability for making an open offer is not personal and continues upon the legal heirs of the deceased acquirers. However, the Tribunal found this assertion erroneous, citing Regulation 27(1)(c) of the SAST Regulations, 1997, which states that the obligation to make a public offer cannot be imposed if the sole acquirer has died. The principle 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' (personal action dies with the person) was applicable, and the cause of action ended with the death of the acquirers.4. Acting in Concert by Promoters:The WTM concluded that all other promoters were acting in concert. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of a common objective among the promoters and stated that the SAST Regulation of 1997 did not deem promoters to be acting in concert without specific findings.5. Inordinate Delay in Initiation of Proceedings by SEBI:The Tribunal noted a significant delay of 12 years in initiating proceedings, which was unreasonable and defeated the purpose of bringing relief to shareholders. The Tribunal emphasized that SEBI's lackadaisical attitude in handling the matter and the delay caused prejudice to the appellants.6. Legality of Proceedings Against Deceased Persons:The Tribunal found that initiating proceedings against deceased persons was illegal. SEBI was aware of the deaths of Mr. R.D. Bhanot and Mrs. Krishna Kumari Bhanot but still issued show cause notices to them. The Tribunal held that no direction could be issued to the heirs without bringing them on record and hearing them.7. Appropriateness of Directions to Make an Open Offer After 12 Years:The Tribunal concluded that directing an open offer after 12 years was not appropriate. Regulation 44 of the SAST Regulations provides various measures for violations, and the Tribunal found that, given the long lapse of time, the direction to make an open offer was not suitable.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the impugned order, stating that the inordinate delay in initiating proceedings and the improper handling of the matter by SEBI rendered the order unsustainable. The appeals were allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for SEBI to adhere to reasonable time limits in initiating proceedings.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found