Equator Financial Services Limited vs Bse Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Equator Financial Services Ltd. ...Appellant Versus BSE Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Chitranshul Sinha, Ms. Meghna Rao, Mr. Yahya Batatawala, Mr. Harshit Goel and Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Puri, Mr. Sahil Grewal and Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.07.2025: This appeal has been filed against an order dated

22.01.2025 passed by the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai

Bench, Court - IV), by which I.A. No. 333(MB)/2025 has been disposed of.

2. The I.A. was filed by Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), the

appellant herein seeking the modification with respect to public shareholding

to 5.32% instead of 0.3% which was in the resolution plan which was already

approved by the adjudicating authority.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the Securities

Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, the public shareholding cannot be less

than 5% even in respect of companies which are resolved under the resolution

plan.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BSE - respondent submits

that BSE could not have granted any exemption for reducing the public

shareholding.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prayer made by the

appellant was only to make compliance of the law which required minimum

5% public shareholding. He has also referred to the order of the NCLT dated

20.02.2024 passed in I.A. (IB) 1576/2023 in C.P. (IB) No. 115/9/HDB/2020,

where similar reliefs were granted, which is at Annexure A-16 of the appeal

paper book.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that plan has already been

implemented within the timeline as allowed in the plan and the said

modification is necessary to comply the law otherwise the applicant shall be

imputed with violation of the law.

7. We are of the view that in facts of the present case, the prayer made by

the SRA which was only with the intent to comply the law which required

minimum 5% public shareholding in company ought to have been allowed.

8. We thus are of the view that appeal deserves to be disposed of.

9. Learned counsel for the BSE however submitted that the respondent is

not adversial to the prayer made by the appellant since that shall lead to the

compliance of law.

10. We dispose of the appeal, the appellant is permitted to make public

shareholding as prayed upto 5.32%.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 592 of 2025 2 of 2