The Arun Bajoria - Bombay Dyeing Tussle
|
|
ICMR HOME | Case Studies Collection
Case Details:
Case Code : BECG029
Case Length : 7 Pages
Period : 2000 - 2001
Pub. Date : 2002
Teaching Note : Available
Organization : Hooghly Mills Company Ltd, Bombay Dyeing, SEBI,FICCI
Industry : Financial Services
Countries : India
To download The Arun Bajoria - Bombay Dyeing Tussle case study (Case Code:
BECG029) click on the button below, and select the case from the list of available cases:
Price:
For delivery in electronic format: Rs. 200;
For delivery through courier (within India): Rs. 200 + Rs. 25 for Shipping & Handling Charges
»
Business Ethics Case Studies
» Case Studies Collection
» ICMR Home
» Short Case Studies
» View Detailed Pricing Info
» How To Order This Case
» Business Case Studies
» Case Studies by Area
» Case Studies by Industry
» Case Studies by Company 
Please note:
This case study was compiled from published sources, and is intended to be used as a basis for class discussion. It is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. Nor is it a primary information source.
|
|
<< Previous
Excerpts
The Bajoria Story
|
Bajoria was born in Kolkata in a prominent family of jute businessmen. In the 1980s, when the Kolkata jute business was faring very badly, Bajoria's companies were generating excess cash. This prompted Bajoria to buy and lease jute mills all over Kolkata. By the mid 1990s, he controlled more than 15% of West Bengal's private sector jute production.
The BD issue was not Bajoria's first brush with the law. Earlier, he was involved in a case for defaulting on the provident fund dues in one of his jute mills. He had also been put in judicial custody by the Enforcement Directorate regarding irregularities in stock market operations...
|
|
The Legal Battle
|
|
In November 2000, Bajoria was served a show cause notice by SEBI and was asked to respond within 15 days. Bajoria requested an extension. He was later asked to appear for a personal hearing on February 1, 2001.
However, just before the due date, he sought another extension from SEBI. The next date was set for February 28, 2001. At this point, Bajoria was asked by the CLB to appear for a hearing in March 2001. Bajoria then moved the Kolkata High Court seeking quashing of the SEBI
notice claiming that he had informed BD of his stake acquisition by a
letter sent 'under certificate of posting.'... |
The Legal Battle
As in the case of many other stock market scams, SEBI's role in the Bajoria/BD tussle was severely criticized. Besides being criticized for not formulating a clear takeover code, SEBI was also accused of delays in taking action against Bajoria after BD lodged the complaint. In fact, it was after the Bajoria case that SEBI made certain amendments to its takeover guidelines...
|
|
