Finance Ministry

Listed companies to maintain minimum 25% public shareholding in three years

Listed companies (other tan public sector companies) to maintain minimum 25% public shareholding in three years
 
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Economic Affairs)
 
NOTIFICATION
 
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2020
 
G.S.R. 485(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, namely:—
 
1. Short title and commencement. –(1) These rules may be called as Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2020.
 
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
 
2. In the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, in rule 19A, in sub-rule (1), in the proviso, for the words “two years” the words “three years” shall be substituted.
 
[F.No. 5/35/CM/2006 Volume-III]
 
A.M. BAJAJ, Addl.Secy. (Financial Markets)
 
Note:The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 vide notification number S.R.O. 576, dated the 21st February, 1957 and subsequently amended vide notification numbers as under:(1) G.S.R 1096, dated the 14th July, 1967; (2) G.S.R. 685, dated the 3rd June, 1972; (3) G.S.R. 959, dated the 8th August, 1972; (4) G.S.R. 2641, dated the 1st November, 1975; (5) G.S.R. 1083, dated the 11th November, 1985;(6) G.S.R. 666(E), dated the 20th July, 1987; (7) G.S.R. 1070(E), dated the 15th November, 1988; (8) G.S.R. 870(E), dated the 13th November, 1992; (9) G.S.R. 617(E), dated the 20th September, 1993 (10) G.S.R. 749(E), dated the 12th October, 1994;(11) G.S.R. 790(E), dated the 7th November, 1994; (12) G.S.R. 121(E), dated the 9th March, 1995; (13)G.S.R.291(E), dated the 27th March, 1995; (14) G.S.R. 581(E), dated the 23rd December, 1996;(15) G.S.R. 654(E), dated the 8th August, 2000;(16) G.S.R. 655(E), dated the 8th August, 2000;(17) G.S.R. 415(E), dated the 7th June, 2001;(18) G.S.R. 696(E), dated the 28th August, 2003;(19) G.S.R. 395(E), dated the 10th June, 2009;(20) G.S.R. 469(E), dated the 4th June, 2010;(21) G.S.R. 662(E), dated the 9th August, 2010;(22) G.S.R.705 (E), dated the 24th October, 2013;(23) G.S.R. 21(E), dated the 16th January, 2014;(24) G.S.R.611 (E), dated the 22nd August, 2014;(25)G.S.R.682 (E), dated the 19th September, 2014;(26) GS.R. 819(E), dated the 18th November, 2014;(27) G.S.R. 125(E), dated the 25th February, 2015; (28) G.S.R. 268(E), dated the 20th March, 2017;(29) G.S.R. 664(E), dated the 27th June, 2017;(30) G.S.R. 822(E), dated the 3rd July, 2017(31) G.S.R.675(E), dated the 25th July, 2018.(32) G.S.R. 738(E), dated the 3rd August, 2018 and(33) G.S.R. 189(E), dated the 19th March, 2020.
 
Download Notification Click Here >>
 
 
Share

Recent Posts

  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

5 days ago
  • RTI

Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC

Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation  and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…

7 days ago
  • Income Tax

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

1 week ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

2 weeks ago