Category: Issue of Capital

ISSUE:

Whether SEBI has the power to adjudicate and investigate the given matter according to Section 11, 11A, 11B of the SEBI Act and under Section 55A of the Companies Act. Or whether the jurisdiction under Section 55A (c) of the Companies Act is with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).

Whether the hybrid OFCDs come under the definition of “Securities” within the meaning of the SEBI Act, Companies Act, and The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (SCRA) for vesting SEBI with the jurisdiction to adjudicate and investigate.

Whether the issue of the OFCDs to millions of persons who had subscribed to that issue is a Private Placement so that not to come within the scope of SEBI Regulations and various other provisions of the Companies Act.

Whether listing of the provisions under Section 73 compulsorily applies to all the public issues or it only depends on the “intention of the company” for getting listed.

Whether the Public Unlisted Companies (Preferential Allotment Rules) 2003 will be applied in this case or not.

Whether OFCDs are Convertible Bonds and whether they are exempted from the application of SCRA as per the provisions of Section 28(1)(b).

RULE:

The Supreme Court has relied upon Sections 28 (1)(b), 55, 67(3), and 73 of the Companies Act, Section 2(h) of SCRA.

ISSUE:

Can somebody who is not among the original allottees of shares can make a claim for indemnity?

RULE:

This case concerns itself with the act of misrepresentation made in the prospectus. The concept of misrepresentation and fraud is given under Section 18 and 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, respectively. The offender can be held liable for fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The principle that evolved in this case was that an action of misrepresentation can only be brought by the misled party, or "representee", which means that only those who were an intended recipient of the representation may sue.

ISSUE:

Is it dishonest when a business creates a prospectus to entice investors but it later turns out to be false?

RULE:

A single misrepresentation is insufficient to establish dishonesty. Deception must be proven; a deceptive statement made carelessly or without good cause to believe it to be true may not qualify.

ISSUE:

Whether private complaint can be quashed at initial stage where evidence has to be recorded, witnesses have to be examined and charges have to be formed?

RULE:

In a case of a private complaint there are two stages, one is taking cognizance and the other is framing charges. If there would be a grave suspicion that the accused would have committed an offence, it is enough for the Court to frame charges.

ISSUE:

Can shareholders, once the company has begun the process of winding up, seek damages or repudiate the contract on the basis of misrepresentation in the prospectus?

RULE:

If it can be proven that a prospectus omits material information and the shareholder comes forward in a timely manner, his name may be struck from the document and the list of shareholders.

ISSUE:

What is the status of irregularities observed with the issue of shares in the nature of IPO?

RULE:

When there is an Initial Public Offering (IPO), the shares are made available to the general public in a specific way so that even small investors, referred to as "Retail Individual Investors" (RII) in the following, also have a good chance to buy shares of newly floated companies or shares of existing companies as and when they are made available to the general public.

ISSUE:

If transactions were carried out with the aim to defraud, and if DLF had any connections that would have allowed it to have reasonable control over the subsidiaries?

Should DLF have included these subsidiaries and the FIR in its prospectus, or was the information in the red herring prospectus insufficient for the investors to make an informed choice about the IPO? Does the IPO's impact from these FIR and subsidiaries matter?

Whether the directors had knowledge of those transactions and knowingly withheld it prior to the IPO with the intent to deceive investors?

RULE:

When the court overrides a company's restricted liability to hold investors or directors personally accountable for any fraud committed, this is known as piercing the corporate veil. The ability of the courts to impose personal culpability on directors and investors must be exercised with extreme caution because doing so would compromise a company's fundamental characteristics of being a separate legal entity with limited liability.