Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 599
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) , Mr. Barun Mitra (Member (Technical)) ,
Equator Financial Services Ltd – Appellant
Versus
BSE Ltd – Respondent
I.A. No. 2117 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 592 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chitranshul A. Sinha, Meghna Rao, Yahya Batatawala, Uma Chatterjee, Shreya Pandey, Shivam Shorewala, Rakshita Bhargava, Archie Garg, Esha Sharma
For the Respondents: Abhishek Puri
The Tribunal clarified that the proposed shareholding structure, ensuring at least 5% public shareholding, is in conformity with the previous order's directive to comply with public shareholding laws.
Headnote:(A) Procedural Clarification - Order Interpretation - Where an application for clarification is filed regarding a specific paragraph of a prior order, the Tribunal shall verify if the proposed implementation (such as shareholding tables) conforms to the original judicial observation regarding minimum public shareholding requirements. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the shareholding table provided by the Appellant conforms to the Tribunal's previous order regarding the 5% minimum public shareholding requirement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for clarification on a prior order regarding minimum public shareholding and the submission of a shareholding table. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the tribunal finds the proposed shareholding table conforms to the legal requirement of 5% minimum public shareholding and disposes of the application. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 04.05.2026 I.A. No. 2117 of 2026 This Application has been filed for clarification on the order dated 15/07/2025 passed by this tribunal.
2. 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.”
3. 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 *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”
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”
5. 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
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the Parties, we dispose of the Application with the above clarifications.
7. Application is disposed of.
