[fap_track url=”http://booktalk.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nirma-Case.mp3″ title=”Nirma Industries Ltd. Vs. SEBI” share_link=”” cover=”” meta=”” layout=”list” enqueue=”no” auto_enqueue=”yes”]
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/183716449?secret_token=s-toCaC” params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]
In their appeal before the Supreme Court, Nirma Industries raised the following grounds:
1. SEBI did not grant an opportunity of being heard while deciding the Withdrawal Application and the Rejection Letter was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Rejection Letter was therefore liable to be set aside.
2. The Promoters of SRMTL had committed a fraud on Nirma Industries and as such this act of fraud had vitiated the transaction. Consequently, Nirma Industries ought not to be mandated to complete the transaction.
3. SEBI should be given wide powers on Regulation 27 (d)8;
4. SEBI ought to have followed a purposive interpretation of Regulation 27 (d) in view of the object for which withdrawal of an offer is sought;
5. Principles of ejusdem generis would not apply in interpreting Regulation 27 (d), since SAT had relied on ejusdem generis taking into account conditions in Clauses (b) and (c) of Regulation 27.
[fap_track url=”http://booktalk.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nirma-Case.mp3″ title=”Nirma Industries Ltd. Vs. SEBI” share_link=”” cover=”” meta=”” layout=”list” enqueue=”no” auto_enqueue=”yes”]
