Court upholds SEBI Circular on share exit, rejects challenge on public shareholders' rights and valuation

The court dismissed the petition challenging the SEBI Circular dated July 25, 2017, finding it lawful and not requiring a complete exit for all public shareholders. The court rejected claims of breaching Minimum Public Shareholding norms and unfair share valuation. It deemed the writ petition against the private company as not maintainable, emphasizing corporate democracy in buyback processes. SEBI's circular was held not to infringe on investors' interests, providing an option rather than a mandate for exit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of SEBI Circular dated July 25, 2017.
2. Compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding (MPS) norms.
3. Fair valuation of shares for the buyback.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private company.
5. SEBI's obligation to protect investors' interests.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of SEBI Circular dated July 25, 2017:
The petitioners challenged the SEBI Circular dated July 25, 2017, which allowed companies to buy back shares to provide an exit to public shareholders. The court noted that the circular had been operational for two years and had been implemented in other cases, such as T. Stanes and Company Limited. The court held that the circular must be read in conjunction with Section 68 of the Companies Act, which governs buyback procedures. The court found no illegality in the circular, stating that it does not mandate a complete exit for all public shareholders but allows shareholders the option to remain if they choose.

2. Compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding (MPS) norms:
The petitioners argued that the respondent company, Bharat Nidhi Limited (BNL), breached MPS norms by including promoters and promoter groups as part of public shareholders. The court noted that SEBI is investigating the breach of MPS norms. The court held that the identification of promoters has no effect on the company's ability to buy back shares, as the option to buy back can be exercised by the company itself or through promoters. The court found no merit in the argument that SEBI failed to act against BNL, as the petitioners had not made any formal complaint to SEBI.

3. Fair valuation of shares for the buyback:
The petitioners contended that the valuation of shares offered for the buyback was not fair and did not consider the true value of BNL's investments. The court stated that if the petitioners were not satisfied with the valuation, they were free not to accept the buyback offer. The court noted that BNL justified the share value based on Section 68 (2)(c) of the Companies Act, which allows a company to buy back up to 25% of its paid-up equity share capital and free reserves. The court held that it lacked the expertise to determine the fair value of shares and that such determination was beyond the scope of judicial review.

4. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private company:
The court held that the writ petition challenging the postal ballot notice and public announcement by BNL was not maintainable, as BNL is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the process of buyback needs to be decided through a special resolution passed at the general meeting of the company. The court also noted that the petitioners, holding a minuscule number of shares, could not stall the buyback process.

5. SEBI's obligation to protect investors' interests:
The petitioners argued that SEBI failed to protect the interests of public shareholders by allowing the buyback under the impugned circular. The court held that SEBI's circular does not compel shareholders to sell their shares and allows those who wish to remain shareholders to do so. The court found no violation of investors' interests, as the circular provides an option rather than a mandate for exit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the SEBI Circular dated July 25, 2017, is in accordance with the law and does not mandate a complete exit for all public shareholders. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding the breach of MPS norms and the unfair valuation of shares. The writ petition against the private company BNL was deemed not maintainable, and the court emphasized that the buyback process should be decided through corporate democracy.

---