AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
I.A. No. 2117 of 2026 This Application has been filed for clarification on the order dated 15/07/2025 passed by this tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Paragraph 7 of the order, where we have observed the following :
“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.”
In the Application in Paragraph 28, the Appellant has extracted a table where it has been mentioned that existing promoter’s shareholdings shall be 0.00% and existing public shareholding shall be 5.3%, which table is as follows :
| Sr. No | Category | No. of shares pre CIRP | % of shareholding | No. of shares post CIRP (Rs. 10/-each) | % of share holding post CIRP |
| 1. | Existing Promoter Shareholders | 41,21,222 | 68.88% | 0.00* | 0.00% |
| 2. | Existing Public Shareholders | 18,61,878 | 31.12% | 2,33,316** | 5.32% |
| 3. | New Allotment to SRA under the resolution plan (Equator Financial Services Limited) | 0 | 0% | 41,50,000 | 94.68% |
| TOTAL | 59,83,100 | 100% | 43,83,316 | 100% |
*100% extinguishment of shareholding of erstwhile Promoters; **the Public shareholders as on record date have been reduced in the ratio of 1:8 and for every fraction, it will be rounded off to next higher integer”
In Paragraph 7 of our order we have already indicated that minimum 5% shareholding ought to have been allowed. What is stated in Table in Paragraph 28 is in conformity with what we have already said in Paragraph 7.
Ld. Counsel for the BSE Ltd. also submitted that the Respondents have no objection if what has been stated in Table in Paragraph 28 be followed.
In view of the aforesaid submissions of the Parties, we dispose of the Application with the above clarifications.
Application is disposed of.