Wednesday, September 24, 2025

MERE DISCLOSURE OF AN AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENTS TO STOCK EXCHANGES DOES NOT BIND A LISTED COMPANY SAYS SEBI

 MERE DISCLOSURE OF AN AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENTS TO STOCK EXCHANGES DOES NOT BIND A LISTED COMPANY SAYS SEBI 


SEBI’S STATEMENT IS A BIG RELIEF TO LISTED COMPANIES  

KIRLOSKAR GROUP ENTITIES VS SEBI 

SEBI’s Submission In a case involving Kirloskar group entities, SEBI clarified before the Bombay High Court that  mere disclosure of an agreement or arrangements to stock exchanges does NOT bind a company. 

REGULATION 30 OF SEBI LODR REGULATIONS, 2015 

Under Regulation 30 of SEBI LODR Regulations, 2015 (and other disclosure requirements), companies sometimes have to disclose agreements or arrangements that are never executed or later don’t materialize. 

CONTEXT 

  • The matter arose from disputes between Kirloskar group entities concerning family settlements and their impact on listed companies. 

  • The issue was whether the disclosure of such agreements to stock exchanges (as per SEBI’s listing obligations) makes the company automatically bound by them. 

 

SEBI CLARIFICATION BEFORE MUMBAI HIGH COURT 

In a case involving Kirloskar group entities, SEBI clarified before the Bombay High Court that: 
Mere disclosure of an agreement does NOT bind a company. Disclosure does NOT create liabilities or imply management/control impact. 

However, the act of disclosing an agreement does not itself mean the company has accepted or is legally bound to implement the terms. 

Binding effect can only arise if the company’s Board of Directors approves and incorporates it into its decision-making. 

OUTCOMES  

The MUMBAI HC permitted withdrawal of petitions, and the matter will proceed before SAT on merits — but the regulator’s stand itself is a major relief to listed entities. 

HOW COMPLIANCE OFFICERS HAVE TO LOOK INTO  

Always disclose material agreements per regulations — but know that disclosure alone won’t create legal liabilities unless you’re actually a party to or ratify the agreement. 

R V SECKAR FCS,LLB, 79047 19295 

TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK AND ITS EX-COMPANY SECRETARY WAS FINED FOR FAILING TO FINALIZE THE DRAFT MINUTES AND ENTER THEM IN THE MINUTES BOOK

 TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK AND ITS

EX-COMPANY SECRETARY WAS FINED  FOR

FAILING TO FINALIZE THE DRAFT MINUTES

AND ENTER THEM IN THE MINUTES BOOK 


TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK VS ROC,CHENNAI 

FAILURE TO FINALIZE DRAFT MINUTES AND ENTER THEM IN THE MINUTES BOOK 

TMB conducted a Board Meeting on 28.09.2023 and circulated draft minutes on 06.10.2023. Due to certain changes in the management structure, there was a delay in obtaining approval from Directors. As a result, Minutes were not finalized within 30 days. 

SECTION 118(11) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 

Section 118(11) of the Companies Act, 2013. It requires that minutes of board meetings be finalized and entered into the minutes book within 30 days period. Failing which, there are penalties. 

Secretarial Standard 7.4 requires the same as above. 

CONSEQUENCE OF NON-RECORDING OF MINUTES 

  • The company is liable to a penalty of ₹25,000 for non-compliance. 

 

  • Every officer in default (e.g. Company Secretary, CFO, etc.) is liable to a penalty of ₹5,000. 

DELAY OF 184 DAYS  

Later, Minutes were finalized & circulated on 03.01.2024 (after 184 days) & entered in the minutes book on 28.03.2024. 

HOW TO OVER COME THESE DEFAULTS  

  • Fix timelines internally for draft preparation, review, approval, and entry. 

 

  • Assign responsibility (often the Secretary/CS) to track and ensure deadlines are met. 

 

  • Internal audit / secretarial audit review: Identify gaps in secretarial practices, minutes preparation, etc., to prevent recurrence. 

R V SECKAR , FCS , LLB 79047 19295