tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post7059914076799522779..comments2023-09-15T16:21:31.980+05:30Comments on INDIAN CORPORATE LAW: Wilful Defaulter Provisions: A Spanner in the Works for M&A Transactions?Umakanth Varottilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438677982004444359noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-60380249006780802052016-06-21T10:00:44.237+05:302016-06-21T10:00:44.237+05:30What about convertible bonds, or corporate bonds? ...What about convertible bonds, or corporate bonds? Does this extend to them as well?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18133547157936536652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-26503686851200101212016-06-19T08:45:26.491+05:302016-06-19T08:45:26.491+05:30Looking back through the archives it has since bee...Looking back through the archives it has since been noticed that the comments , wrt an earlier Post @ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IndianCorporateLaw/~3/-EwpgYRlH6w/synchronised-trades-per-se-not-illegal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email- though not posted or displayed on the website of ICL, - as then covered in a personal blog, copied and pasted below* - gave rise to a like piquant situation :<br />*Q<br />Any such action by a regulatory authority, SEBI being one among the lot, with the object of 'regulating' the market players' activities, unless initiated so also completed promptly, or in any event within a reasonable time frame, cannot but in the nature of things, prove futile, rather stale.<br />This is a bizarre instance in which SEBI cannot be regarded to have displayed any diligence in discharging its duties. Especially, what is required is that the facts and circumstances to be kept in view for coming to a right conclusion were those as obtained at the relevant point time i.e. year 2000. The point to be seriously considered how is it possible to bring on record any evidence to support a stand that SEBI has chosen to take after a lapse of years passed by.<br />UQ<br />The above added feedback is simply intended to focus on the fact that the want of diligence as displayed, and noted, nearly four years ago has remained to be realised as yet.<br />vswaminoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-4436541890589581872016-06-18T16:26:45.594+05:302016-06-18T16:26:45.594+05:30Very well thought through, analysed and most impor...Very well thought through, analysed and most importantly articulated. Thanks for this post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-41900891993845995512016-06-18T07:49:20.486+05:302016-06-18T07:49:20.486+05:30“.......Prohibition is well intended, there is no ...“.......Prohibition is well intended, there is no express provision spelling out the consequence(s) if a wilful defaulter violates the Prohibition.”<br />“The author has discussed a similar lapse in relation to another amendment by SEBI here.”<br />To comment:<br />The point(s) of inadequacy /insufficiency of the subject prohibition(s) lately inserted by the SEBI on the two referred successive occasions, as focused on by the learned lawyer, in one’s independent perspective, are not without substance or merit. To add with the same breath, however, which requires a far more serious / anxious consideration is, how any such prohibition brought into being by a regulatory authority could be effectively and successfully invoked, and enforced, in a case where the faulted default, even if held to be ‘wilful’ by applying the specified tests, is anterior, in point of time, to the date on which the prohibition is notified and brought into being. To be precise, the difficulty as envisaged concerns giving the prohibition a retrospective / retroactive legal effect. <br />It is commonly known that even in respect of matters coming within the purview of tax (es) regime e.g. income - tax, the government / concerned law and finance ministries , have for valid / sound reasons, as a matter of policy, departing from the historically indulged in obnoxious practice of, unlike until the very recent past , chosen to refrain from retrospective /retroactive enactments, by way of amendments or otherwise.<br />On the mentioned aspect, readily comes to mind published tax articles, in which own independent thoughts / viewpoints have been shared; citation of one of which is: (2008) 169 TAXMAN 14. <br />vswaminoreply@blogger.com