- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court moved by Yes Bank It wants Dish TV to disclose the outcome of the annual general meeting held recently Yes Bank has approached the Bombay High Court requesting it to direct Dish TV to publicly disclose the results of its annual general meeting (AGM) held in December last. Dish TV (a direct broadcast satellite service provider with Yes Bank as the biggest...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay High Court moved by Yes Bank
It wants Dish TV to disclose the outcome of the annual general meeting held recently
Yes Bank has approached the Bombay High Court requesting it to direct Dish TV to publicly disclose the results of its annual general meeting (AGM) held in December last.
Dish TV (a direct broadcast satellite service provider with Yes Bank as the biggest stakeholder) had issued a notice to the stock exchanges. It claimed that the court had directed it to disclose the results after the final hearing. The court is set to hear the matter on February 3.
In its latest petition, Yes Bank has said that the court in its earlier order had not put a stay on the disclosure of the AGM results. It had declined to give relief to World Crest Advisors (WCA), the promoter entity of Dish TV. The promoter had questioned the legal validity of Yes Bank's shares in the satellite-TV provider.
Yes Bank stated, "The outcome of an AGM of a listed entity cannot be kept secret and in abeyance from its shareholders and the stock exchanges in the absence of an order of a court or other competent authority."
It added that Dish TV's promoters had made several attempts to debar its top shareholder from voting during the AGM.
Meanwhile, the court had not provided any relief to WCA, which has a 25.63 percent stake in Dish TV.
The dispute was that WCA had pledged the shares with Yes Bank in lieu of the bank giving money to Subhash Chandra-controlled entities in 2016. Chandra-owned Zee Group had launched Dish TV in 2003).
When the privately held firms of Chandra could not pay back the interest on the money borrowed from Yes Bank, last year, the bank invoked the share pledged with it, emerging as the largest shareholder in the company. Dish TV promoters now own only 5.93 percent of the company's shares.
Financial creditors, including Yes Bank, own about 45 percent of shares in Dish TV, and executives from three financial creditors and shareholders claim that more than 55 percent of shareholders voted against the three resolutions. These were – the adoption of the financial accounts, the re-appointment of Ashok Kurien as director and approving the remuneration to the auditor.
In 2019, when Essel Group entities had defaulted on payment of Rs.5,270 crore in loans given by Yes Bank, the bank invoked a pledge on 47.19 crore Dish TV shares. It then became the owner of a 25.63 percent stake in the direct-to-home service provider.
In 2021, the Essel Group entity WCA filed a suit in the Bombay High Court against Yes Bank and Catalyst Trusteeship, a securities trustee. It claimed that it was the owner of over 44 crore equity shares of Dish TV, presently held by Yes Bank in its demat account.
(It is to be noted that the Essel Group founder is the elder brother of Jawahar Goel, chairman and managing director of Dish TV).