April 21, 2018

Bharat Nidhi Shareholders to Benefit From Hon'ble Delhi High Court Order

In a significant order pertaining to investors' fraud through the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Delhi High Court has reprimanded at least 60 defaulters who through a firm Bharat Nidhi Limited had fraudulently submitted documents that it was enlisted at a Rs non-existent' Calcutta Stock Exchange. 
The court has asked them to file affidavit within four weeks and spell out the exit route to be given to its investors as per the SEBI directives, which however has been confronted by the investors that SEBI was at fault for enlisting them even though they did not met certain conditions.
 The relief, if granted, will be in the interest of hundreds of shareholders worth thousands of crores of investments and will uphold the mandate of Section 11 of SEBI.
Following the High Court reprimanding last month, SEBI has assured the court that 63 companies will be brought back within 15 days from Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE) to dissemination board of nationwide stock exchange. SEBI has also committed to the Court to take actions against defiant companies who are not giving exit route to investors.


Source / credit

http://www.dailypioneer.com/city/hc-reprimands--60-defaulters-for-fraud-through-sebi.html

------------------------------------------

BLOG COMMENTS

It appears ( which please Recheck ) that Bharat Nidhi and 60 + other companies were bypassing SEBI 's Directions of 2016 ,to companies earlier listed in , now , Defunct Stock Exchanges , to either Relist in an National Stock or give an Exit Route to Non Promoters shareholders, by getting listed in Calcutta Stock Exchange which was a cosmetic move as Calcutta Stock Exchange is Non Operational and listing in CSE is of no use to Investors.


Hon'ble Delhi High Court., vide its Order dt. 20/03/2018, ( Justice Rajeev Shakdher ) in case No. WP ( C) 9846 / 2017 titled Jaspreet Aulakh Vs. SEBI and Another has decreed that Bharat Nidhi and others should ,with in 6 weeks , prepare the groundwork for giving an Exit Route to Investors.

Detailed Order 



This is a landmark Judgement in favour of small / Non Promoter shareholders.

Please , also , click


April 21, 2018


Reed Relays- Big Victory For Small Investors in NCLAT



=================
Blog Gratitude to

Divyanshu Aggarwal


(Director)

GROWFAST SECURITIES and CREDIT LTD ,Delhi

Tel : 011 - 47085000- 05

Tel :- +919811119970, +919821644180


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Investors interests would be better served if Metropolitan Stock Exchange is declared Defunct like Calcutta Stock Exchange. SEBI should not renew in 2018 Metropolitan Stock Exchange 's licence

Vimal Goyal said...

Latest update in the High court case is as below. Now next date of hearing is 03/10/2018.

$~31, 32 & 33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9846/2017 & CM Appln. Nos.40071/2017, 21290/2018
JASPREET AULAKH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Tanpreet
Gulati, Ms. Twisha Issar, Advocates.
versus
SEBI AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Anup Jain, Mr. Abhishek
Baid, Mr. Praweet Das, Advocates for
R1/SEBI.
Mr. Kirat Singh, Mr. Kartik Yadav
and Ms. Neha Sarna, Advocates for
R.2.
32
+ W.P.(C) 11404/2017 & CM Appln. No.46658/2017, 21288/2018
MRS. VIRAJ AGGARWAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Tanpreet
Gulati, Ms. Twisha Issar, Advocates.
versus
SEBI AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Anup Jain, Mr. Abhishek
Baid, Mr. Praweet Das, Advocates for
R1/SEBI.
Mr. Kirat Singh, Mr. Kartik Yadav
and Ms. Neha Sarna, Advocates for
R.2.
33
+ W.P.(C) 11427/2017 & CM Appln. No.46638/2017, 21289/2018
MRS. RAJ KUMARI AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Tanpreet
Gulati, Ms. Twisha Issar, Advocates.
versus
SEBI AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Anup Jain, Mr. Abhishek
Baid, Mr. Praweet Das, Advocates for
R1/SEBI.
Mr. Kirat Singh, Mr. Kartik Yadav
and Ms. Neha Sarna, Advocates for
R.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R
% 29.08.2018
1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has referred to a letter
dated 10.08.2018 sent by Calcutta Stock Exchange to Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
informing it that in terms of instructions received from SEBI, the company
could either voluntarily delist from the Calcutta Stock Exchange in the
manner laid down in the Security and Exchange Board of India (Delisting of
Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009 or may obtain listing on a nation-wide
Stock Exchange(s).
2. It is contended on behalf of respondents that in view of the aforesaid
communication, the petitioner could have no possible grievance as the action
that would follow is identical to what would be required once a company is
put on the Dissemination Board as per the Circular dated 10.10.2016.
3. Undisputedly, once a company is put on the Dissemination Board it
has either to obtain listing on a nationwide Stock Exchange or otherwise
provide an exit route to its minority shareholders.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the exit
route provided under the SEBI Circular dated 10.10.2016 is materially
different from the delisting procedure under the Security and Exchange
Board of India (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009. He states
that in terms of the said Regulations, the promoters of the company have an
option to reject a fair value, which is not available in terms of Annexure-A
to the Circular dated 10.10.2016. According to the petitioners, the
expression ‘fair value’ to be determined as per the Circular is also different
from the exit value to be provided under the aforesaid Regulations.
3. Learned counsel appearing for SEBI is directed to file an affidavit
clearly indicating whether the procedure of providing the exit in terms of its
Circular dated 10.10.2016 is different from the abovementioned
Regulations. If this is so, SEBI shall indicate the reasons for following a
different procedure in respect of the 34 companies, which as contended on
behalf of SEBI, should have remained in the Dissemination Board in the
first place.
4. It is pointed out on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the contention that
63 companies that were listed on the Dissemination Board ought not have
been removed from the Dissemination Board in the first place on their
applying for listing on the Calcutta Stock Exchange, is not the SEBI’s stand
in the affidavits filed on its behalf. SEBI shall also file an affidavit placing
its aforesaid stand on the record.
5. Let the affidavit be filed within three weeks from today.
6. List on 03.10.2018 for further proceedings.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 29, 2018
dr