https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234044 Withdrawal of an open offer under Regulation 27(1)(d) was confined to circumstances akin to statutory impossibility and could not be justified merely because the acquisition became commercially unattractive. The absence of a personal hearing did not invalidate SEBI's decision where the acquirer had already presented its case in writing, no oral hearing was requested, and no prejudice was shown. Alleged fraud, post-announcement fall in share price, processing delay, and a fresh valuation did not warrant relief, because the regulations did not require post-offer reassessment and the acquirer remained bound to complete the offer under the takeover code. en-us Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 May 2014 10:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234044 Withdrawal of an open offer under Regulation 27(1)(d) was confined to circumstances akin to statutory impossibility and could not be justified merely because the acquisition became commercially unattractive. The absence of a personal hearing did not invalidate SEBI's decision where the acquirer had already presented its case in writing, no oral hearing was requested, and no prejudice was shown. Alleged fraud, post-announcement fall in share price, processing delay, and a fresh valuation did not warrant relief, because the regulations did not require post-offer reassessment and the acquirer remained bound to complete the offer under the takeover code. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234044