SAT stays Sebi order banning Kishore Biyani, other Future promoters from markets
Top Searches
SAT stays Sebi order banning Kishore Biyani, other Future promoters from markets
PTI / Feb 16, 2021, 23:06 IST
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEMail
Future Retail chairperson Kishore Biyani (File photo)
NEW DELHI: The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has stayed an order passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) that had banned Future Retail chairperson Kishore Biyani and some other promoters from the securities market for one year for alleged insider trading.
SAT has also directed the Future Group promoters to deposit a sum of Rs 11 crore as an interim measure. In a hearing held on February 15, 2021, the Securities Appellate Tribunal has stayed the effect and operation of Sebi s order accusing the promoters of the Future Group of insider trading in the context of purchases of Future Retail shares made in March 2017, Future Corporate Resources Private Limited (FCRPL) said
SAT Stays SEBI Order Against Kishore Biyani, Future Group Entity
Feb 16 2021, 12:10 PM
February 15 2021, 10:08 PM
February 16 2021, 12:10 PM
The Securities Appellate Tribunal has stayed the market regulatorâs order that restricted Future Group founder Kishore Biyani, his brother Anil Biyani and Future Corporate Resources Pvt., along with other individuals from accessing the securities market for a year.
The Securities Appellate Tribunal has stayed the market regulatorâs order that restricted Future Group founder Kishore Biyani, his brother Anil Biyani and Future Corporate Resources Pvt., along with other individuals from accessing the securities market for a year.
A three-member bench led by Justice Tarun Agarwala, who heard the matter through video conferencing, stayed the effect and operation of Securities and Exchange Board of Indiaâs order. It has directed the entities to deposit an amount of Rs 11 crore and will hear the matter in April, as per the media rel
SAT stays SEBI’s order banning Kishore Biyani, other Future promoters from markets
Updated:
Updated:
Share Article
Kishore Biyani. File
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has stayed the order passed by market regulator SEBI, that had put a one-year ban on Future Retail Chairperson Kishore Biyani and some other promoters from the securities market.
SAT has also directed the Future Group promoters to deposit a sum of ₹11 crore as an interim measure.
“In a hearing held on February 15, 2021, the Securities Appellate Tribunal has stayed the effect and operation of SEBI’s order accusing the promoters of the Future Group of insider trading in the context of purchases of Future Retail shares made in March 2017,” Future Corporate Resources Private Limited (FCRPL) said in a statement.
SAT stays SEBI order against Kishore Biyani
February 15, 2021
×
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has granted a stay on SEBI’s order against Kishore Biyani in an insider trading case.
SAT has, however, asked Biyani and others involved in the case to deposit ₹11 crore with SEBI within four weeks, said sources.
The matter was heard before Justice Tarun Agarwala. Future Corporate Resources Limited (FCRL), Future Group’s Kishore Biyani and his brother Anil Biyani had moved an appeal in SAT against SEBI order that barred them from the securities market.
The case pertains to an announcement made by FRL to the exchanges on April 20, 2017. FCRL merged into Suhani Trading and Investment Consultants Private Limited, which resulted in the de-merger of a few businesses of FRL which benefitted the company in a monetary manner.
Firms/companies > A > Amazon
Future Retail challenges Delhi HC s status quo order on RIL-FRL deal
08 February 2021
A day after the Delhi High Court upheld the Singapore arbitration court’s stay order in Future Group’s sale of its retail and wholesale assets to Reliance Retail, the Kishore Biyani-led Future Group moved a counter petition in the high court seeking vacation of the Delhi court’s order in favour of Amazon Inc.
Hearing in the petition started on Thursday with counsel for Amazon Gopal Subramanium arguing that the order of the arbitrator is deemed to be an order of the court and that 6he single judge order had specifically stated that it was not sitting in judgement over the Emergency Arbitration Order.