sebi:SEBI/WTM/SR/CFD/67/09/2017
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Vacated directions issued vide interim order dated June 04, 2013 and confirmed by order dated January 11, 2016 (except direction at Paragraph No. 15 of Confirmatory Order) with immediate effect; separate adjudication proceedings to be initiated
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 21
- s. 12A
Regulations
- Reg. 38
- Reg. 31A
- Reg. 31A(2)
- Reg. 2(1)(q)(v)
Parties
- Kesar Petro Products Limited
- Directors of Kesar Petro Products Limited
- Promoters and promoter group of Kesar Petro Products Limited
Holding
SEBI vacated the MPS-related restrictions imposed on Kesar Petro Products Limited, its directors, promoters and promoter group as public shareholding had reached 30.98% by June 2017, while holding that violations had occurred and directing separate adjudication proceedings.
Full text
Page 2 of 14 except for the purpose of complying with minimum public shareholding requirement till such time these companies comply with the minimum public shareholding requirement, Restrain the shareholders forming part of the promoter/promoter group in the non-compliant companies from holding new position as a director in any listed company, till such time these companies comply with the minimum public shareholding requirement, Restrain the directors of non-compliant companies from holding new position as a director in any listed company, till such time these companies comply with the minimum public shareholding requirement.
Page 3 of 14 confirmatory order dated January 11, 2016, inter alia seeking directions of the Hon’ble SAT for vacating the directions issued by SEBI (vide the aforesaid Interim Order and Confirmatory Order). Kesar Petro also submitted before the Hon’ble SAT that they had complied with the MPS norms.
Page 4 of 14 the part of the erstwhile management of the company. Furthermore, although the rehabilitation scheme was approved by the BIFR, the erstwhile promoters of the company not only did not cooperate for a smooth transition of the management but also created hurdles including non-payment of Income Tax dues (Leading to penalties), …….to sabotage the scheme of Rehabilitations. It was only with the assistance of Police Authorities that the incoming promotes could take possession of the assets of the company. The matter related to ECBs was finally settled in the review petition in the court only in 2013. d. With the efforts of the new promoters, the company became profitable in 2013 and has remained so thereafter………. e. The SCRR was amended in 2010 and mandated the manner in which public shareholding was to be brought up to 25% within 3 years and marinated at that level. Since the new promoters could not have raised fresh capital and since the shares could not be sold on stock exchange because of suspension (which the BSE was not willing to lift because of failure to meet MPS requirements), the promoters were not able to sell their shares on BSE and thus reduce their shareholding. f. Therefore, in and around November 09, 2012, SIL transferred a total of 48.16 % (24.08% shares each) to Mr. Shreyas Sharma and Ms. Shruti Sharma who were coparceners of Dinesh Sharma HUF. On April 2013, Mr. Shreyas Sharma and Ms. Shruti Sharma retired as coparceners of Dinesh Sharma HUF and thus
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 — sebi:SEBI/WTM/SR/CFD/67/09/2017. 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.