Upholds bank management’s decision to defer share transfer; RBI’s approval a pre-requisite
CLB dismisses petition for transfer of 1073 shares held by petitioner (pvt ltd co) in private banking co, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Pvt Ltd (‘respondent co’), holds that such transfer registration required prior approval of RBI; Accepts respondent co’s submission that since petitioner was group / related entity with Shri B. Sivanthi Adithan and Shri B. Ramachandran Adithan (other investors), who already had invested in respondent co., thereby holding shares in excess of 10% of paid up share capital of respondent bank, which required RBI approval; Rejects petitioner’s contention that relating it with other investors to form a ‘group concern’ was ‘farce’, ‘deliberate with ulterior motive’, only to invoke RBI guidelines and defer share transfer registration process; Observes that petitioner co had several investments in which the other investors were directors, thus, they were related / group concerns;Holds that thus, “reasoning given by the respondent…is a valid reason and cannot be treated as refusal”, states that “respondent intends to comply with the statutory requirement of law to which the petitioner has to cooperate in complying…rather than approaching this Bench” :Chennai CLB
CSGAURAV +919990694230
[email protected] https://www.facebook.com/gauravdelhiravpage
Subscribe to CS GAURAV SHARMA by Email
CLB dismisses petition for transfer of 1073 shares held by petitioner (pvt ltd co) in private banking co, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Pvt Ltd (‘respondent co’), holds that such transfer registration required prior approval of RBI; Accepts respondent co’s submission that since petitioner was group / related entity with Shri B. Sivanthi Adithan and Shri B. Ramachandran Adithan (other investors), who already had invested in respondent co., thereby holding shares in excess of 10% of paid up share capital of respondent bank, which required RBI approval; Rejects petitioner’s contention that relating it with other investors to form a ‘group concern’ was ‘farce’, ‘deliberate with ulterior motive’, only to invoke RBI guidelines and defer share transfer registration process; Observes that petitioner co had several investments in which the other investors were directors, thus, they were related / group concerns;Holds that thus, “reasoning given by the respondent…is a valid reason and cannot be treated as refusal”, states that “respondent intends to comply with the statutory requirement of law to which the petitioner has to cooperate in complying…rather than approaching this Bench” :Chennai CLB
CSGAURAV +919990694230
[email protected] https://www.facebook.com/gauravdelhiravpage
Subscribe to CS GAURAV SHARMA by Email
