sebi:WTM/PS/102/CFD/DEC/2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Directions issued vide the interim order dated June 04, 2013 confirmed against the Company, its directors, promoters and promoter group
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 21
- s. 12A
Parties
- Hindustan Breweries and Bottling Limited
- directors
- promoters
- promoter group
Holding
SEBI confirmed the directions issued in the interim order dated June 04, 2013 against Hindustan Breweries and Bottling Limited, its directors, promoters and promoter group for failure to maintain the minimum public shareholding (MPS) of 25%.
Full text
Page 2 of 3 (‘BSE’) and Delhi Stock Exchange. The scrip of the Company is suspended for trading at BSE. 3. The Company did not file any reply to the interim order. In the interest of justice, the Company was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on July 08, 2015. In the said hearing, Mr. N. K. Pokharna appeared on behalf of the Company and submitted that the premises of the Company was sealed by the Police and they were not allowed to take the documents. Mr. N. K. Pokharna on behalf of the Company requested time of two months for complying with the MPS norms. The representative also requested liberty to file written submissions. As no written reply was filed by the Company, the request was allowed and the representative was advised to file the written submissions within a period of one week. However, till date, the Company did not file any response/ written submissions to the interim order.
Page 3 of 3 and Clause 40 A of the Listing Agreement read with Section 21 of the SCRA, and such non-compliance being continuous in nature, it becomes necessary for SEBI, to confirm the directions issued vide the interim order against the Company, its directors and promoters/ promoter group. Further, for proper regulation of the securities market and in view of the continuing nature of the violations committed by the Company, SEBI may also initiate other action, as appropriate in law, against the Company, its directors and promoters.
4. While proceeding further, I have considered the interim order passed in the matter against the Company, its promoters and directors. The interim order was issued against the Company as it had failed to maintain the MPS of 25% as mandated under Rule 19A of the SCRR and Clause 40A of the Listing Agreement read with section 21 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 (‘SCRA’). As per the last filing of shareholding pattern of the Company for the quarter ended December 2012, as seen in the BSE website, the promoters hold 84.50% and the public holds only 15.50%. The Company is therefore in violation of the MPS requirements. I note that the Company has not filed any response in its defence.
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:WTM/PS/102/CFD/DEC/2015. 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.