38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, November 24, 2024
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

Imposition of 25 Crores Penalty on Mukesh Ambani, Anil Ambani & Family for Irregularities in RIL Shareholding By SEBI [READ SEBI ORDER]

By Tanya Sehrawat      09 April, 2021 01:33 PM      0 Comments
Imposition of  25 Crores Penalty on Mukesh Ambani, Anil Ambani & Family for Irregularities in RIL Shareholding By SEBI

A penalty of Rs. 25 Crores has been imposed on family members of the Ambani Family, namely, Mukesh Anil Ambani, Nita Ambani, Tina Ambani,  and few others by the Security and Exchange Board of India. 

This penalty has been imposed on them on the issue of irregularities pertaining to the issue of 12 crore equity shares in January 2000 by Reliance Industries Ltd at a price of Rs.75 per share to 38 allottee entities. There have been violations of Regulation 11(1) of the Takeover Regulations.

The allotment had been made consequent to the exercise of the option on warrants attached with 6,00,00,000-14% Non-Convertible Secured Redeemable Debenture (NCD) of Rs.50/-each aggregating to Rs.300,00,00,000 (PPD IV) issued in the year 1994. It was observed that it had disclosed the above mentioned 38 allottee entities as Persons Acting in Concert("PACs") with the RIL promoters as from the disclosure that was filed under Regulation8(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations,1997 ("Takeover Regulations") by RIL to Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) on April 28, 2000. 

It was further observed as from the aforesaid disclosures that were made by RIL that the shareholding of RIL promoters together with PACs had increased from 22.71% as on March31, 1999 to 38.33% as on March31, 2000. Out of these, 7.76% shares were acquired consequent upon a merger and thus were exempt under regulation 3(1) (j) (ii) of Takeover Regulations. However, 6.83% shares that were acquired by RIL promoters together with PACs in exercise of 3 crore warrants, were alleged to be in excess of ceiling of 5% prescribed in rein regulation 11(1) of Takeover Regulations. 

In addition to this, an allegation of the obligation in order to not make an additional acquisition of more than 5% of voting rights in any financial year unless such acquirer makes a public announcement to acquire shares in accordance with the regulations under regulation 11(1) of Takeover Regulations arose on January 7, 2000, the date on which the PACs were allotted RIL equity shares on exercise of warrants issued in January 1994 was made. 

There were no public announcements made for acquiring sharing by the Promoters and the PACs which attracted the violation of provisions of regulation 11(1) of Takeover Regulations.

A period of 45 days has been granted to deposit the penalty. 

It must also be noted that Mukesh Ambani, Anil Ambani, Nita Ambani, Tina Ambani and fifteen other members of the Ambani Family and few Reliance entities have been held jointly and severally liable with the imposition of penalty. Also, it must be highlighted that Mukesh Ambani's children Akash Ambani and Isha Ambani, and Anil Ambani's son Jayanmol Ambani, were minors on the date of the violation, January 7, 2000. 

SEBI also referred to Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardians Act and went on to hold Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani as natural guardians of their children. Therefore, they must be held liable as for the violation in respect of the shares that were held by their children, who were minors on the date of violation.

While passing the order, the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI, K Saravanan observed:

I hold that the Noticees by not making a public announcement have violated and have been continuing to violate the provisions of Regulation11(1) of the Takeover Regulations". "The Noticees by their failure to make public announcement, deprived the shareholders of their statutory rights/ opportunity to exit from the company"

"The acquisition of shares which gives rise to voting rights thereon is a continuous contravention of the bar in law contained in Regulation 11 as the Acquirers and Persons acting in Control are not 'entitled' in law to lawfully exercise the voting rights based on such a null and void acquisition. This cannot be considered as anything but a continuing failure to give the public announcement of the open offer as required under Regulation 11(1) of the Takeover Regulations"

"In the instant case, the violation was not one which was committed once and for all but that which continues till date. The violation is a disobedience of the statutory provisions by which the acquisition of securities giving the Notices enhanced control by the exercise of voting rights, etc and these are violations which are continuing so long as the voting rights are acquired in violation of the letter and spirit of the law".

"It is an admitted fact that the Noticees did not make the public announcement as per the mandatory requirement of Regulation 11 of the Takeover Regulations and the open offered being a consequential and necessary part thereof, which was absolute in nature. Such a failure is a continuing violation till discharge.

The market regulator further stated that they have been liable under Section 15H of the SEBI Act, 1992 for violation of Regulations11(1) of the Takeover Regulations. 

Lastly, in the order, the Adjudicating Officer said, "I note that the respective Noticees who are the Natural Guardians of the aforesaid minor Noticees are responsible not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of the minors."

 

[READ SEBI ORDER]



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

can-the-preamble-of-the-constitution-be-amended-during-an-emergency-and-after-the-expiry-of-the-lok-sabha
Trending Know The Law
Can the Preamble of the Constitution be Amended During an Emergency and After the Expiry of the Lok Sabha?

Can the Preamble of the Constitution be amended during an emergency? Explore constitutional, legal, and ethical questions surrounding the 42nd Amendment.

23 November, 2024 10:03 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-to-president-decide-death-row-convict-balwant-singhs-mercy-plea-in-2-weeks-or-court-will-intervene
Trending Judiciary
SC to President: Decide death row convict Balwant Singh’s mercy plea in 2 weeks or court will intervene

SC directs President to decide death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana’s mercy plea in 2 weeks, warns of intervention if delay persists. Hearing on Dec 5.

18 November, 2024 01:11 PM
high-courts-must-ensure-genuineness-of-settlement-before-quashing-proceedings-sc
Trending Judiciary
High Courts must ensure genuineness of settlement before quashing proceedings: SC [Read Judgment]

SC mandates High Courts to verify the genuineness of settlements in serious offences like rape before quashing cases, ensuring justice and transparency.

18 November, 2024 01:49 PM
supreme-court-enforces-grap-4-measures-to-combat-delhis-severe-air-pollution-warns-against-relaxation
Trending Judiciary
Supreme Court enforces GRAP-4 measures to combat Delhi’s severe air pollution, warns against relaxation [Read Order]

Supreme Court enforces GRAP-4 measures in Delhi-NCR as air quality worsens, mandates strict action on pollution and stubble burning for immediate relief.

19 November, 2024 10:26 AM
cji-sanjiv-khanna-recuses-from-delhi-ridge-tree-felling-case-supreme-court-seeks-tree-restoration-updates
Trending Judiciary
CJI Sanjiv Khanna recuses from Delhi Ridge Tree Felling Case, Supreme Court seeks tree restoration updates

CJI Sanjiv Khanna recuses from Delhi Ridge tree felling case citing prior involvement; Supreme Court seeks updates on restoration and monitoring measures.

19 November, 2024 10:58 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email