TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and order dated February 7, 2023, passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The said order was passed on an application filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) being CA/4/2021 under CP/206/2012. 2. By the said order, inter alia, the SEBI was granted leave to take necessary action against the company and its promoter group and directors as per the provisions and methods available under the Security Laws for inability of the company to meet the MPS requirements. 3. The facts relevant to the case are that on June 4, 2010, rule 19A of the Security Contract Requirement Rules, 1957 was brought into force, requiring all public listed companies to ensure and maintain at least 25% of its shareholding amongst the general public (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gulation) Rules, 1957, in relation to any and all investments held by the Investment Trust." 7. The scheme was sanctioned by orders of the Company Court dated April 17, 2013. Pursuant to such sanction, about 40% of the shares of M/s. DPSC came to be held by the trust by reason of the scheme. 8. Upon SEBI realizing that the scheme, particularly clause 3.3.3 thereof was an attempt to bypass the provision of rule 19A(supra), and the Trust could not constitute members of the public, applied before the Single Bench for recall and/or modification of the scheme in question. 9. The Company Court, having in essence, realized that it was misled into sanctioning the scheme to the extent that it violated rule 19A(supra), from time to time allowed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es pledged to M/s. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. were directed to be sold under a Receiver appointed by this Court. The bonafides and legality of the invocation of the Arbitration Clause by SREI and the concurrence of the trust in this regard leave many questions unanswered. 15. The SEBI having realized that M/s. IPCL, in its new form and the Power Trust were attempting by hook or crook to frustrate and/or bypass the compliance of the MPS under rule 19A(supra), finally applied before the Single Judge seeking the following reliefs: (a) Leave of the Court may be granted that apart from the divestment process being adopted by the Trust and in case the Trust is unable to meet the MPS compliance, the Company/its Promoter(s)/Promoters Group/Dire....