Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: sebi securities and exchange board of india or securities appellate tribunal sat Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.063 seconds)

Mar 10 2003 (TRI)

Sebi Vs. Kamal Overseas Ltd. (Kol)

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Mar-10-2003

..... in a listed company. shri chawla, in turn approached shri piyush avlani who had earlier indicated to him that he knew about a listed company for takeover. shri chawla then mediated between shri piyush avlani and shri rakesh sheth and once they started discussions he was out of the picture.15. shri rakesh sheth however, denied that he approached shri kalpesh .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2003 (TRI)

Kishore Rajaram Chhabria Vs. the Chairman Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-01-2003

Reported in : (2003)46SCL385SAT

..... through the creeping acquisitions, and to that extent clearly displays the non-application of mind rendering the impugned order a nullity to that extent.moreover, this aspect betrays the pre-mediated design of sebi in forcing the appellant to reduce his shareholding to the limits desired by persons in management of the target company.77. on the applicability of the case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2003 (TRI)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Mar-03-2003

1. this appeal (no. 3 of 2002) was filed by bharat sanchar nigam limited (bsnl), a government company, challenging the interim arrangement made by the telecom regulatory authority of india (trai) regarding distribution of default traffic between bsnl and bharti telesonic limited (btsol). bsnl is one of the telecom service providers, which provides basic and long distance telecommunication services. btsol was also permitted to provide national long distance telecommunication services under licence agreement dated 29.11.2001 entered with the government of india. bsnl in the appeal has challenged the communication dated 25.1.2002 issued by the trai on the ground that it is without jurisdiction; it being contrary to the provisions of the trai act, 1997; and also in contravention of nldo (national long distance operators) licence granted by the government of india to btsol. there are two respondents in the appeal. first is trai and the second btsol.2. when this appeal came up for admission on 31.1.2002, before this tribunal, while issuing notices, it was directed that "in the meantime, the directions given by the telecom regulatory authority of india vide its letter dated 25^thjanuary 2002, shall not be implemented". this interim order continued during the pendency of the appeal. while the pleading in the appeal were being completed, on 6.3.2002 it was brought to the notice of the tribunal that trai was seized of the matter and discussions were on for passing a final order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2003 (TRI)

M.P. Mehrotra and Somesh Mehrotra Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Mar-28-2003

1. vls finance ltd., (the company) is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the companies act, 1956. it is engaged in the business of financing projects, leasing and investments.it had made a public issue of equity shares sometime in march, 1994.shares of the company are listed on several stock exchanges in india.the company had decided to raise further capital from the market. for the purpose a prospectus was issued on 14.11.94. in the said public issue 36,66,600 equity shares of rs.10/- each at a premium of rs.390/- per share aggregating to rs.146,66,40,000 were offered. the public issue opened on 15.12.1994. it was reportedly oversubscribed by five times. the company in the said prospectus, under the head "capital structure" at item 7 of the notes (page 11) had made the following disclosure: "the promoters have been issued 10 lakh optionally convertible non transferable warrants (ocnt), each convertible into 10 equity shares at their option which shall be exercised not earlier than 12 months and not later than 60 months from the date of allotment of the warrants. this ocnt warrants issue was approved by the shareholders in their meeting held on 2.8.94 and allotted to the promoters in the board meeting held on the same day. the promoters have given an undertaking to the company that they shall opt for conversion at rs.400/- per share. they have also undertaken that the conversion shall be opted in phases so that the growth rate in the earning per .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2003 (TRI)

Nepc India Limited, Nepc Agro Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Mar-31-2003

1. the present appeal is directed against the respondents order dated 2.7.2001. by the said order s/shri ravi prakash khemka, raj kumar khemka, ratan kumar khemka, tirupathi kumar khemka and madhu sudan khemka (the acquirers)along with their group companies were debarred from accessing the capital market for a period of 5 years. the order is issued under section 11b read with section 4(3) and section 27 of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (the act).2. the acquirers in the wake of substantial acquisition of shares/control of damania airways ltd.(name changed to skyline nepc ltd.) (appellant no.3), as required under the provisions of the securities and exchange board of india (substantial acquisition of shares and takeovoers) regulations, 1994 (takeover regulations).made a public announcement to acquire 64,66,800 fully paid up equity shares of rs.10/- each representing 20% of the voting capaital of skyline nepc ltd. the offer was to remain open from 1.2.1996 to 29.2.1996. the offer price was rs.35.25 per share. the total consideration payable for 64,66,800 shares was rs.22.80 crores. the offer closed on 29.2.1996.pursuant to the offer, several shareholders of the said compazny offered the shares held by them. in terms of regulation 22, person (s) acquiring shares is required within a period of four weeks from the date of closure of the offer complete all procedures relating to the offer including payment of consideration to the shareholders who have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2003 (TRI)

Mithani Investment (Through Its Vs. the Securities and Exchange Board ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Apr-22-2003

Reported in : (2003)44SCL408SAT

1. the present appeal is directed against the respondent's order dated 12.12.2002. by the said order one hem enterprises and its proprietor shri hasmukh shah and the appellant and its proprietor shri milan j.mithani were debarred from "associating with the capital market related activities, dealing in securities, accessing the capital market and associating with any of the intermediaries in the capital market for a period of five years" with effect from the date of the order.2. the direction, as per the impugned order is issued under section 11b of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (the act) read with regulation 12 of the securities and exchange board of india (prohibition of fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities market) regulations, 1995 (futp regulations) against the parties named in the order with reference to their alleged role relating to the public issue made by one company viz. bharthari financial services ltd. (now known as bt technet ltd) (bfs). as per the information furnished by the respondent in september 1995 bfs made a public issue of 13,50,000 equity shares of rs.10 each for cash at par for an aggregate sum of rs.1.35 crores, which remained open from 29.9.95 to 5.10.95. the issue was reportedly oversubscribed by 17.8 times. the concerned stock exchange accorded approval of the 'basis of allotment' on 8.12.1995 and granted listing permission on 14.12.1995.the respondent reportedly received market reports indicating that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2003 (TRI)

In Re: Acquisition of Shares/

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Apr-30-2003

1.1 mr. c v kamani, mr. r c kamani, mr. d c kamani, unicorn holdings pvt. ltd- a holding and investment company for the kamani family and troupe international ltd-overseas corporate body owned by kamani family (hereinafter collectively referred to as acquirer) collectively hold 65.57% shares in rajath finance limited (hereinafter referred to as target company). the target company has been promoted by kamani family.the shares of the target company are listed at the saurashtra kutch stock exchange, ahmedabad stock exchange and the stock exchange, mumbai.1.2 the acquirer proposes to acquire 20.11% shares of the target company from public shareholders and 14.31% shares from other directors/promoters/ relatives holding shares in the target company.pursuant to the aforesaid proposed acquisition of 34.42% shares of the target company, the acquirer will hold 100% shares in the target company.2.1 the acquirer made an application dated 30.11.2002 to the securities and exchange board of india (hereinafter referred to as sebi) under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 4 of sebi (substantial acquisition of shares and takeovers) regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the regulations") seeking exemption from the provisions of regulation 11(1) for making public announcement by making an advertisement and to appoint merchant banker / registrar in terms of the regulations.3.1 in the aforesaid application dated 30.11.2002 and subsequent correspondence dated 12/12/2002 the acquirer inter- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2003 (TRI)

Sebi Vs. Hemendra V Shah

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Jul-16-2003

1. investigations were conducted by sebi into the alleged price manipulations and irregularities in the public issue of m/s suryadeep salts, refinery & chemicals works ltd. (hereinafter as "ssrcl"). 1.1 ssrcl had come out with a public issue of 58,50,000 equity shares at par. the issue had opened for subscription on 06/03/1996 and closed on 09/03/1996. the issue was found to have been subscribed to the extent of 94.52% from the statutory reports filed with sebi . although 48,80,000 equity shares, out of a total 55,29,900 was seen allotted to the public, only 8 applicants' namely ,i.e., surendra somani, rakesh naval, chandra m singhi, raj basantani, seema basantani, madhukar patil, ajay verma and kewal verma were seen in the records.2. investigations also brought out that that the issue was not genuinely subscribed and the same was shown to have been fully subscribed by way of financing arrangement. in the market manipulation of ssrcl, shri hemendra shah was found to have allowed his terminal to be used in the creation of false market. therefore, a show cause notice dated february 12, 2003 was issued against him. vide the aforesaid show cause notice he was required to show cause as to why suitable directions, including directions debarring him from dealing in the securities market, under sec. 11b of sebi act, 1992 should not be issued against him. 2.1 a reply dated 1.03.2003 was received by shri hemendra shah wherein he had stated that the detailed history of ssrcl came to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2003 (TRI)

Luxottica Group Spa, Ray Ban Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Indi ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-29-2003

Reported in : (2004)1CompLJ258SAT

1. the order passed by the respondent (sebi) on 5.8.2002 in the matter of acquisition of shares/voting rights and control of ray ban sun optics india ltd. (formerly known as bausch & lomb india ltd.) by luxottica s. p. a is under challenge in the present appeal.2. the appellant no. 1 (the luxottica group s.p.a) is a company registered under the laws of italy. it is engaged inter alia in the design, manufacture and marketing of prescription/spectacle frames and sunglasses ('eyewear' business/ 'the business'). it has operations in several countries directly or through its subsidiaries.3. the appellant no.2 is a corporate entity incorporated under the laws of usa. it is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of the appellant no.1. the appellant no.3 is also a corporate entity incorporated under the laws of usa. it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the appellant no.2 and an indirect subsidiary of the appellant no. 1.4. certain other entities, namely bausch & lomb inc. ray ban sun optics india ltd.(formerly known as bausch & lomb india ltd.), bausch & lomb south asia inc, bausch & lomb south asia holdings inc., are also involved in the matter. bausch & lomb inc., a corporate entity incorporated in new york, belongs to the bausch & lomb group of usa.bausch & lomb group is engaged in the production, marketing and distribution of sunglasses and spectacle frames and certain related accessories (eyewear and eyecare business) in various localities around the world.5. ray ban sun optics india .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2003 (TRI)

United Breweries Holdings Vs. the Chairman, Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Sep-01-2003

Reported in : (2003)47SCL206SAT

1. the applicants above mentioned, have filed the two miscellaneous applications (review applications.). the applications are identical in substance. these are against the common order passed by this tribunal on 1.8.2003 in appeal no. 13 and in appeal no. 14. the applicants have also filed separate identical applications ( no. 96/2003 and no.98/2003) seeking interim order staying the operation of the tribunal's order dated 1.8.2003 pending the hearing and final disposal of their applications. these applications were filed in the tribunal on 11.8.2003. the appellants above mentioned filed affidavit in reply to the review applications on 21.8.2003. according to the appellants these reply affidavits were filed "only for a limited purpose viz. to point out that the review petition filed by the applicants is not maintainable and that they are not entitled to any interim relief as sought for or otherwise. identical affidavits dated 25.8.2003 captioned "limited affidavit in rejoinder...." made by the company secretary of the applicant united breweries holdings ltd and reply affidavit thereto also dated 25.8.2003, from the appellants were tendered by the respective counsel for the parties at the time of hearing on 25.8.2003.2. the background of filing of the present review applications briefly is as follows: the respondent sebi had passed a common order on 19.2.2002 holding that the appellants had acquired shares in herbertsons ltd., (target company) without complying with certain .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //