- 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
NCLT Accepts ICICI Bank's Plan Of Delisting Affiliates From Bourses
NCLT Accepts ICICI Bank's Plan Of Delisting Affiliates From Bourses
Earlier, the Mumbai bench had also approved the plan
The Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has approved ICICI Bank’s scheme of arrangement to delist the broking firm ICICI Securities Ltd from the bourses.
The bench presided by Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) okayed the plan and dismissed two applications that objected to the scheme.
The bank had argued that the objections did not meet the required shareholding threshold. The delisting was approved by a significant majority of ICICI Securities' shareholders, and it sought to dismiss the applications.
(The delisting proposal was approved by 93.82 percent in value of the equity shareholders of ICICI Securities and 71.89 percent in value of the public shareholders approved it. This was above the requisite threshold under the applicable law).
The bank stated that under Section 230 (4) of the Companies Act, only shareholders having a minimum of 10 percent of the company’s shareholding could object to it. The two objectors Quantum Mufutal Fund and an investor Manu Rishi Guptha held 7,41,488 shares (0.010 percent) and 200 shares (0.0000 percent).
The two firms’ objections were based on the premise that the swap adversely affected minority shareholders. Quantum and Manu Rishi hold 0.08 percent and 0.002 percent of the paid-up equity share capital of ICICI Securities, respectively.
However, the country's second-largest private-sector lender responded that none of the objections had any relevance vis-a-vis shareholders of the ICICI Bank.
Appearing for ICICI Bank, Sandeep Singhi, Senior Partner of Singhi & Co Advocates stated, "The contentions raised by the objectors in the applications are similar to the contentions raised by the objectors before the Mumbai NCLT.”