0123-2006 Holcim India Private Limited vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Full text
“Given the plain reading of SAST regulations 10, 11, 12 along with the exemptions available in Reg. 3, in tandem with SC ruling in Technip case, it is clear that the contention of Holcim that it was not required to make an open offer to the shareholder of EIL u/r 10 and 12 of SAST is absolutely untenable. Acquisition of shares and control over ACC by Holcim and PACs triggered SAST regulations, thus obligating them to make open offer to the shareholders of EIL. In terms of the provisions of Regulation 21(1) of SAST, the public offer made by the acquirer to the shareholders of the tar
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Appeal No. 123 of 2006 Date of decision : 29.5.2008 Holcim (India) Private Limited …… Appellant Versus
The Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — 0123-2006 Holcim India Private Limited vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.