TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether there was breach of the continuing disclosure requirement under Regulation 13(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992. (ii) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction, on a petition transferred from Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, to annul the share transfer and direct the shareholders to transfer the shares to the company.
Issue (i): Whether there was breach of the continuing disclosure requirement under Regulation 13(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992.
Analysis: The shares were purchased on 27 May 2004, but the disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Board of India was made only on 17 August 2004, far beyond the prescribed four working days. The regulatory requirement under Regulation 13(3) read with Regulation 13(5) was therefore not complied with.
Conclusion: The disclosure obligation under Regulation 13(3) was breached.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction, on a petition transferred from Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, to annul the share transfer and direct the shareholders to transfer the shares to the company.
Analysis: Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 and, after transfer, Section 59(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowered the Tribunal only to direct rectification of the register or records and to set right a contravention. Those provisions did not authorise the Tribunal to pass a penal order annulling the transfer or compelling the shareholders to sell their shares to the company. Since the matter stood transferred under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, it had to be dealt with under the later Act and within the confines of Section 59(4).
Conclusion: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to annul the shares or direct transfer of the shares to the company.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained because the Tribunal exceeded its statutory power, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: In a transferred share-rectification proceeding, the Tribunal may only direct rectification or setting right of the contravention under Section 59(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, and cannot annul the transfer or compel sale of shares to the company.
TaxTMI 
