Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 JULY 2011

Interested Shareholders May Lose Vote

JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Contributor
JSA Advocates & Solicitors

JSA Advocates & Solicitors

Established in 1991 Our services: JSA is a leading law firm in India with more than 600...

View firm profile
Explore more from JSA Advocates & Solicitors

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has proposed to suitably amend a portion of Clause 166 of the Companies Bill, 2009, disallowing interested shareholders from voting on special resolutions required for related-party transaction.

IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
Lalit Kumar
Lalit Kumar
Author LinkedIn connections

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has proposed to suitably amend a portion of Clause 166 of the Companies Bill, 2009, disallowing interested shareholders from voting on special resolutions required for related-party transaction. Sebi made this recommendation to the ministry of corporate affairs following its board meeting on February 7. The recommendation is based on the investigation conducted into the Satyam scam and was made with the objective to protect small and diversified shareholders in listed companies from abusive related-party transactions. This is not the first time Sebi is moving to disallow interested shareholders from voting on resolutions. For instance, Sebi regulations allow delisting only if the votes cast by the 'public shareholders' (which excludes promoters) in favour of delisting are at least twice the number of votes cast by 'public shareholders' against it.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

CCPS In India: Why Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares Remain Central To Venture Capital And M&A Transactions

Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) remain one of the most widely used instruments for venture capital and private equity investments in Indian companies. Their appeal lies in the ability to combine equity classification with negotiated economic and governance protections. But CCPS are not governed by a single, standalone statutory framework. Their legal treatment is instead shaped by the Companies Act, FEMA and foreign investment rules, tax law, and, where applicable, SEBI regulations.
IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

Overview Of The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026

Argus Partners maintains offices in Mumbai, New Delhi, and Bengaluru, providing legal services across India's major business centers. The firm operates under strict Bar Council of India regulations that prohibit solicitation and advertising, with this website serving purely informational purposes. Users must acknowledge that no attorney-client relationship is created through website access and should seek independent legal advice for specific matters.
IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
Argus Partners
Argus Partners
Article

FCRA Amendment Rules, 2026: Key Changes And Practical Implications

AZB & Partners provides important disclaimers regarding the nature and purpose of their website, clarifying that no solicitation or advertising has occurred and that the information is provided solely at the user's request. The firm outlines the limitations of the website content and emphasizes that accessing it does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Users are informed about their responsibilities when using the site and the firm's intellectual property rights over the content.
IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
AZB & Partners
AZB & Partners
Article

The Supreme Court Of India Clarifies: Order II Rule 2 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(D) Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

A two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in S. Valliammai and Ors. vs. S. Ramanathan and Anr. recently held that Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) cannot constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The Supreme Court drew a critical distinction between the two provisions clarifying that while Order II Rule 2 curtails the right to sue for certain claims or reliefs, but it does not bar filing of a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies That Compromise Decrees Asserting Pre-existing Rights Are Not Subject To Registration Or Payment Of Stamp Duty

In the recent case of Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the issue of whether compromise decrees that assert pre-existing rights necessitate registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and are subject to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors