GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Settlement Order in respect of Religare Finvest Ltd., in the matter of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd

LinkedIn


Court :
SEBI

Brief :
SEBI conducted an investigation inter-alia to ascertain whether the promoters of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd., (DCHL) have made any fraudulent pledging of shares of the Company and whether adequate disclosures had been made in accordance with SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to “SAST Regulations”), during the period October, 2011 to December, 2012

Citation :
SETTLEMENT ORDER NO. SO/PM/NR/2020-21/6252

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, MUMBAI
SETTLEMENT ORDER NO. SO/PM/NR/2020-21/6252
SETTLEMENT ORDER
In respect of application no., 4124/2020

 

Submitted by Religare Finvest Ltd., in the matter of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.,

1. SEBI conducted an investigation inter-alia to ascertain whether the promoters of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd., (DCHL) have made any fraudulent pledging of shares of the Company and whether adequate disclosures had been made in accordance with SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to “SAST Regulations”), during the period October, 2011 to December, 2012.

2. The investigation revealed that the promoters of DCHL pledged 3,00,00,000 equity shares in July, 2012 constituting 14.37% of the total share capital with Religare Finvest Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “Religare” / “Applicant”). As per the irrevocable power of attorney dated June 1, 2012, 3,00,00,000 equity shares were deposited with Religare acting as the Depository Participant on June 2, 2012. It was observed that through this irrevocable power of attorney, Religare, in the event of default by the promoters, was entitled to create pledge in its favour. Therefore, these shares were encumbered at the time of entering into the agreement on June 1, 2012. In view of the above, necessary disclosures were required to be made by Religare for the non-disposal undertaking entered on June 1, 2012 to the Stock Exchange and to the Target Company in terms of Regulation 29(1) read with Regulation 29(3) and 29(4) of the SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011, which Religare failed to do so. Therefore, it was alleged that Religare had violated the provisions of Regulation 29(1) read with Regulation 29(3) and 29(4) of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011.

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 19 October 2020
Published in LAW
Views : 22
downloaded 9 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags