{"id":219392,"date":"2019-09-11T11:31:06","date_gmt":"2019-09-11T06:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=219392"},"modified":"2019-09-17T17:58:17","modified_gmt":"2019-09-17T12:28:17","slug":"sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/","title":{"rendered":"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution"},"content":{"rendered":"

Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT):<\/strong> A Division Bench of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair (Member), affirmed the order passed by BSE, where they held that the forfeiture of shares made by the appellant-Company was not in accordance with the provisions of the Articles of Association of the Company.<\/p>\n

The appellant entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) with Primus Retail Private Limited wherein they agreed to transfer their business undertaking including the assets and liabilities as well as the trademarks and licenses to the appellant for a total consideration of Rs 100 crore. However, Primus failed to perform its obligation under the BTA and the creditors of Primus filed a Company Petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court passed an order of winding up and appointed an Official Liquidator. The appellant too intimated Primus that the BTA had been rendered void and they forfeited the shares allotted to them and further directed to reissue them to other parties in due course subject to statutory approvals and compliances. Based on this resolution the appellant had filed an application before the BSE for recognizing the forfeiture of the shares by the appellant-Company.<\/p>\n

However, BSE stated that there was no request received from the Official Liquidator with regard to the cancellation of shares or if the Official Liquidator was aware of the forfeiture of the shares and the subsequent application made by the appellant to BSE at all. BSE informed that the delisting cannot be done through forfeiture of the shares and can only be done in accordance with the Companies Act. There was also no provision in the BTA for forfeiture of shares allotted to Primus on account of non-performance of the obligation by Primus, but the Articles of Association of the appellant-Company provided for forfeiture of the shares subject to certain compliances.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to Clause 29, 30 and 31 of Schedule I of Table A of the Companies Act and held that a notice is required to be given to the shareholder giving them an opportunity for payment of the call money. Thus, before any forfeiture can be made an appropriate service of notice is a condition precedent to be fulfilled. Therefore, if there is any, irregularity either in the contents of the notice or in the service of notice as required under Clause (30) the same would be fatal to the validity to the forfeiture. The Supreme Court in Public Passenger Service Ltd. v. M.A. Khadar<\/em> (1967) 36 Comp Cas 1 had held that a defective notice of forfeiture of shares renders the subsequent forfeiture invalid. Further, there was nothing to indicate that due notice was given to Primus or to the Official Liquidator before the resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the appellant-Company. Once shares were allotted and registered in the name of Primus, the appellant-Company had no power to forfeit the shares on the ground of failure of consideration. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the BSE.[Madhusudan Securities Ltd. v BSE Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 166<\/b><\/a>, decided on 09-09-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): A Division Bench of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair (Member), affirmed the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":209781,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[31652,35052,37518,3673],"class_list":["post-219392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-articles-of-association","tag-business-transfer-agreement","tag-forfeiture-of-shares","tag-official_liquidator"],"yoast_head":"\nSAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): A Division Bench of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair (Member), affirmed the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-09-11T06:01:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-09-17T12:28:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/\",\"name\":\"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-11T06:01:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-17T12:28:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution","og_description":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): A Division Bench of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair (Member), affirmed the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-09-11T06:01:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-09-17T12:28:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/","name":"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","datePublished":"2019-09-11T06:01:06+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-17T12:28:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/11\/sat-forfeiture-of-shares-not-in-accordance-with-articles-of-association-shares-once-allotted-cannot-be-forfeited-by-a-resolution\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SAT | Forfeiture of shares, not in accordance with Articles of Association; shares once allotted, cannot be forfeited by a resolution"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":277077,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/10\/failure-of-director-to-contradict-allegation-of-contract-of-purchase-from-the-company-can-only-fasten-liability-for-the-alleged-amount-but-cannot-lead-to-forfeiture-of-his-office-of-director-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":219392,"position":0},"title":"Failure of Director to contradict allegation of contract of purchase from the Company can only fasten liability for the alleged amount but cannot lead to forfeiture of his office of Director: SC","author":"Editor","date":"November 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a case where the appellant challenged the forfeiture of his office of Director for allegedly entering into a contract with the Company in contravention of S. 86-F of the Companies Act, 1913 and filed an appeal before this Court, the 6-judges Bench of Harilal Kania, C.J., Fazl\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-227-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-227-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-227-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-227-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-227-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":234899,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/27\/sat-reason-for-bringing-in-a-minimum-pubic-shareholding-requirement-under-securities-contracts-regulations-rules-is-to-ensure-non-concentration-of-shares-at-the-hands-of-a-single-person-or-a-group\/","url_meta":{"origin":219392,"position":1},"title":"SAT | Reason for bringing in a minimum public shareholding requirement under Securities Contracts (Regulations) Rules is to ensure non-concentration of shares at the hands of a single person or a group of persons","author":"Editor","date":"August 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal: The Coram of Tarun Aggarwal (Presiding Officer), C.K.G Nair (Member) and M.T. Joshi (Judicial Officer) dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the impugned order by SEBI. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant is a public limited company\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":340505,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/05\/one-sided-agreement-developer-buyer-bsp-refund-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":219392,"position":2},"title":"One-sided Developer-Buyer Agreement; SC refuses to interfere in NCDRC\u2019s order to refund amount in excess of 10% of BSP","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 5, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court reiterated that one-sided Agreements, as in the present case, would be covered by the definition of term \u201cunfair trade practice\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"one-sided agreements","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/one-sided-agreements.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/one-sided-agreements.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/one-sided-agreements.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/one-sided-agreements.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200840,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/29\/no-restriction-on-conversion-of-tata-sons-to-private-limited-company-was-a-hybrid-company-all-along-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":219392,"position":3},"title":"No restriction on conversion of Tata Sons to private limited company; was a \u2018hybrid\u2019 company all along: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) passed orders at the stage of admission of appeals filed by Cyrus Investments against the judgment of National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai whereby it dismissed appellant\u2019s applications filed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":215924,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/sat-dr-prannoy-roy-and-radhika-roy-allowed-to-hold-position-as-director-and-key-managerial-personnel-in-ndtv-until-the-next-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":219392,"position":4},"title":"SAT | Dr Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy allowed to hold position as Director and Key Managerial personnel in NDTV until the next order","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai : A Coram of Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) J., Dr C.K.G. Nair (Member),\u00a0 M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), J. allowed three appeals filed by Dr Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy and RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd. against a common order passed by the Whole Time Member ( herein \u2018WTM\u2019)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":296584,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/12\/sat-dismiss-appeal-not-maintainable-shareholder-right-to-continue-litigation-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":219392,"position":5},"title":"SAT Mumbai dismisses appeal under S. 15T SEBI Act for not having filed by an ‘aggrieved person’","author":"Arunima","date":"July 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"SAT Mumbai observed that it is not open to a shareholder to complain about the scheme of arrangement before the SEBI or to the Stock Exchange nor is it open to the shareholder to make a representation and \/or file an appeal before this Tribunal under Section 15T of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"securities appellate tribunal, mumbai","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/securities-appellate-tribunal-mumbai.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/securities-appellate-tribunal-mumbai.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/securities-appellate-tribunal-mumbai.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/securities-appellate-tribunal-mumbai.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219392\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/209781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}