• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

  • NCLT
    Debt owed by one Partner does not make
  • DSK Legal advised CARE in relation to the acquisition of CHL group
    DSK Legal advised CARE in relation to
  • Tax
    ITAT rules on TDS credit not being
  • Capital-Loss
    ITAT rules on expenditure claims in a
  • Income-Tax-Act
    Madras High Court rules on remand
  • CBIRC approves Goldman Sachs-ICBC launch of wealth management joint venture
    CBIRC approves Goldman Sachs-ICBC launch
  • McDermott
    McDermott appoints eight IP partners to
  • SEBI
    SEBI fines PGIM AMC, its CEO Ajit Menon,
  • Property-Right
    'Right to Property is a basic human
  • German-Government
    German Government proposes new
HomeNewsFrom the Courts
11 April 2022 8:00 AM GMT

Supreme Court notice on SEBI appeal against Bombay High Court

By Legal Era
Supreme Court notice on SEBI appeal against Bombay High Court

Supreme Court notice on SEBI appeal against Bombay High Court The apex court will hear the case on May 4. The Supreme Court has issued a notice in an appeal filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against a Bombay High Court decision. The high court had permitted the shareholders of Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd (RCFL) to carry out a voting process based on...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans


Supreme Court notice on SEBI appeal against Bombay High Court

The apex court will hear the case on May 4.

The Supreme Court has issued a notice in an appeal filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against a Bombay High Court decision.

The high court had permitted the shareholders of Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd (RCFL) to carry out a voting process based on a Debenture Trust Deeds signed by the shareholders in compliance with a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular.

A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud directed that the results of the voting should be produced before the top court in a sealed cover.

Earlier, the division bench of the Bombay High Court had ruled to protect the interest of the retail debenture holders while voting for the takeover of RCFL by Authum Investments & Infrastructure.

The court had stated, "We do not see how the interest of the retail investors is not protected should the voting be carried out in terms of the DTDs. Under this procedure, the decision-making power still vests with each individual debenture holder. Every debenture holder will have the right to vote and the faith of the vote shall be decided by a majority of 75 percent after taking into consideration the votes cast by the debenture holders. This mechanism is fair, just, equitable and in keeping with the interest of all stakeholders."

However, it stayed its judgment till 28 March so that SEBI could appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case pertained to the applicability of the two circulars issued by the lenders - RBI and SEBI. While the RBI circular provided that voting by the lenders had to be 75 percent in value and 60 percent of the total number of lenders, SEBI stipulated that participation of all debenture holders was required.

The stakeholders to RCFL had approved the resolution plan of Authum in July 2021. RCFL owed over Rs.9,000 crores to its creditors. Accepting the resolution plan of Authum, which offered Rs.1,240 crores, meant an 86 percent write-off for the creditors.

Following the approval of the Resolution Plan (RP), SEBI sought an order from the high court to restrain RCFL and the lead bank amongst the consortium of creditors from acting upon or creating third party rights in respect of the security under the DTDs.

The Supreme Court pointed out, "This would lead to an incongruous situation wherein even if one single investor either votes against or worse, abstains from voting, the entire resolution plan would fail. In such a situation, it would be the retail debenture holders who would suffer the most. Therefore, according to the respondent, SEBI, whose role is to protect the interest of the small investors, would in fact be defeating their rights by submitting that the meeting of debenture holders should be held as per their circular."

A single judge of the high court had ruled that the voting could take place as per the DTDs executed. SEBI had, therefore, appealed before the top court.

TAGS:
  • Supreme Court 
  • Justice DY Chandrachud 
  • Securities and Exchange Board of India 
  • Bombay High Court 
  • Reserve Bank of India 
  • Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd 
  • Authum Investments & Infrastructure 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
Trending Now
Tax on Alimony

Tax on Alimony

DSK Legal advised CARE in relation to the acquisition of CHL group

DSK Legal advised CARE in relation to the acquisition of CHL

Gautam-Saha

Gautam Saha leaves AZB & Partners to join Talwar Thakore &

Defamation

'Action of defamation on fair reporting is unhealthy for a

Recommended Articles
Digital Markets Must be Defined Well for Competition Regulation

Digital Markets Must be Defined Well for Competition

Legal Considerations for Investments in Data Centers in India

Legal Considerations for Investments in Data Centers in

From General Counsel to Independent Director

From General Counsel to Independent Director

Revitalizing The Insolvency Regime in India

Revitalizing The Insolvency Regime in India

  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2022© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X