SEBI

SEBI amends ICDR regulation for non requirement of minimum promoters’ contribution

SEBI amends ICDR regulation for requirement of minimum promoters’ contribution
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
 
NOTIFICATION
 
Mumbai, the 8th January, 2021

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (ISSUE OF CAPITAL AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2021

No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2021/03.—In exercise of the powers conferred under section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board hereby makes the following Regulations to further amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018, namely: –
 
1.These regulations may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021.
 
2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
 
3. In the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018, –
 
I. In regulation 112, the existing clause (b) along with the proviso shall be substituted with the following, namely, –
 
“(b) where the equity shares of the issuer are frequently traded on a stock exchange for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the reference date, and:
 
(i) the issuer has redressed at least ninety five per cent of the complaints received from the investors till the end of the quarter immediately preceding the month of the reference date, and;
 
(ii) the issuer has been in compliance with the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 for a minimum period of three years immediately preceding the reference date:
 
Provided that if the issuer has not complied with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, relating to composition of board of directors, for any quarter during the last three years immediately preceding the date of filing of draft offer document/offer document, but is compliant with such provisions at the time of filing of draft offer document/offer document, and adequate disclosures are made in the offer document about such non-compliances during the three years immediately preceding the date of filing the draft offer document/offer document, it shall be deemed as compliance with the condition:
 
Provided further that where the promoters propose to subscribe to the specified securities offered to the extent greater than higher of the two options available in clause (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 113, the subscription in excess of such percentage shall be made at a price determined interms of the provisions of regulation 164 or the issue price, whichever is higher.”
 

II. In regulation 115, the existing proviso after clause (c), shall be omitted.

III. In regulation 167, after the existing sub-regulation (4), the following new proviso shall be inserted, namely, -“Provided that the lock-in provision shall not be applicable to the specified securities to the extent to achieve 10% public shareholding.”

AJAY TYAGI, CHAIRMAN
[ADVT.-III/4/Exty./443/2020-21]

Download Notification Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

12 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

3 days ago
  • GST

A bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” in GST Notice u/s 74 not sufficient – SC

In GST Notice u/s 74, allegations should emanate from itself, a bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” not…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

For claiming deduction u/s 57(iii), test is of purpose and connection, not actual yield – ITAT

For claiming deduction u/s 57(iii) a reasonable and intelligible nexus should be established between the expenditure incurred and the income…

6 days ago