In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs by Shri Sivaraman, it has not been disputed that Shri Rathi had called him up to express his displeasure at the recording of the discussion during the meeting upon which Shri Rathi commented, that this was only an internal note for the concerned officials. Larsen And Toubro Limited, An The application adverted to the Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by this Court in pursuance of which 1. Grasim would then make an open offer for 30 percent of the UltraTech’s equity at the same price and would take its stake to 51 per cent. The Plaintiffs claim that there was an agreement by which these shares were to be sold to the Second Plaintiff at and for a consideration of Rs. At the time when the restructuring agreement was entered into, parties confined the sale of the Defendants’ holding to the extent of
The strike price was fixed as Rs per share. Nor is it a primary information source. It may be sufficient to say that RIL could not manage to get support from the government, public at large and financial institutions. The Plaintiffs seek specific performance of an agreement by which the Defendants agreed, according to the Plaintiffs, to sell their shareholding of 9,62, shares in the First Plaintiff which, together with the accretion of bonus shares totals up to 19,25, shares. An issue shall have to be framed thereon and a finding rendered at the trial of the suit. Agriculture Market of India. It is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation.
IIM Kozhikode launches its annual management festival, Backwaters It was after the transfer of Thereafter, an investment company that was a subsidiary of Grasim acquired another 4.
With this Grasim would receive approx. The proposal stipulated that upon the approval of the respective Boards of Directors, a binding restructuring agreement would be entered into between the parties.
40 Years Ago And now: L&T – The graveyard of corporate raiders | Business Standard News
Grasim Cement and competitor. The Restructuring agreement and the Deed of Covenant stipulate that they would constitute stuvy whole understanding between the parties and would supersede all prior negotiations and understandings.
Chennai-based Chartered Accountant S. Finally, it would be appropriate to advert to the provisions of Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, A presentation was made to the Board of Directors of the essential features of the transaction. Cement division must have made losses in The case of vss Plaintiffs is that at a meeting held on 18th Novemberparties agreed that l& balance of the shares would be sold at a consideration of Rs.
The offer failed miserably and Grasim could get only 9. Naik, gives glimpses of behind-the-scenes corporate wars Mumbai: ACC-All news related to this company.
Larsen And Toubro Limited, An vs Grasim Industries Limited, A on 14 December,
Career in International Hotel Management. Naik, who is outspoken, transparent, willing to take risk. By Aprilthe SEBI came to conclusion that Grasim had not violated Takeover Code, and that its offer was valid subject to making some additional disclosures.
Email to a Friend. The ll&t envisaged in the Restructuring agreement that the Second Plaintiff would acquire from the Defendants The Nationalist, a biography of Larsen and Toubro chairman A. Printable version May 23, 6: Rathi, whole time Director and Chief Financial Officer on behalf of Grasim and it was stated that the original of the letter was being kept in the safe custody of S.
The transaction documents contemplated were: The offer, the application stated, was being considered for acceptance of the balance of 9,62, equity shares constituting 0. Finally, it would be necessary to refer graaim clause The proposal envisaged that the following documents would be executed in relation to the transaction, namely i A Scheme of Arrangement; ii A Share sale and purchase agreement; and iii A Deed of Covenant.
40 Years Ago… And now: L&T – The graveyard of corporate raiders
The letter stated that Grasim understood that it would not sell the balance of its stake 0. At the time when the restructuring agreement was entered into, parties confined the sale of the Defendants’ holding to the extent of Acquisition of Betapharm by DRL.
Its my turn to describe Intern. The objectives of the restructuring agreement were defined as follows:. Grasim on its part studu alleged to be apprehensive of the levy of capital gains tax between the rate of Rs. On the question of limitation, no opinion need be expressed at this stage.
Prima facie, the course of events that has taken place would show that it was initially within the grssim of the parties that as part of the restructuring agreement of the cement business, Grasim would acquire a certain specified percentage of the equity of the Cement Company, while caae the other hand, it would sell the entire shareholding of More recently, the Supreme Court followed the dictum in M.