| Register here |
Loading…
Other resources on the amendment:
Ankit Singh Mehar, Senior Executive and Khushi Hariyani, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Loading…
Also see our related resources:
– This version: 21st May, 2024
Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
| Given the significance of the amendments, we are organizing an online workshop on Verification of Market Rumours by listed entities and other related amendments on Monday, 27th May, 2024. Details of workshop can be accessed here Register here |
Regulatory instruments and standards on rumour response:
What is the change? And applicable from when?
| Price range of the listed equity shares | Percentage variation in share price which shall be treated as material price | ||
| Benchmark index movement (+/-) is less than 1% at 9.30 am | Benchmark index movement (+/-) is greater than 1% at 9.30 am, and MPM is in the same direction as the Index change | In cases not covered by column on LHS | |
| Rs. 0 to 99.99 | ≥ 5% | ≥ 5% + % change in Benchmark index at 9:30 am) or Band hit | ≥ 5% |
| Rs. 100 to 199.99 | ≥ 4% | ≥4% + % change in Benchmark index at 9:30 am) or Band hit | ≥ 4% |
| Rs. 200 and above | ≥ 3% | ≥3% + % change in Benchmark index at 9:30 am) or Band hit | ≥ 3% |
[Note – Where a prior intimation of Board meeting of the company has been given under Reg 29 of LODR for such “impending” event or information, the company need not respond to the rumour till the conclusion of the Board meeting.]
In the Table below, we take few situations to understand the applicability of verification of market rumour:
| MPM | Impending specific event under reg. 30 | Rumour in mainstream media | Verification of rumour by company required? |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Yes | No | Yes | Yes, as the existence of MPM by itself satisfies the condition for rumour verification |
| Yes | Yes | No | No, there is no rumour to be verified. The company may disclose based on the information/event reaching the appropriate stage. |
| Yes | No | No | There is no rumour to be verified. |
| No | Yes | Yes | Rumour verification is not required, but the general principles of disclosure of events or information at an appropriate stage will be followed. |
Also see our related resources:
– Mahak Agarwal | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
– Updated on December 13, 2025
The broad spectrum of the definition of Related Party Transactions (RPTs) under the Listing Regulation, continues to be an error prone area in terms of compliance. A recent SEBI ruling1 has further strengthens this aspect where the phrase ‘transfer of resources, services or obligations’ has been explained in an extremely new dimension with a commendable insight from the authorities which again shows that the regulators can no more be restricted by the imaginary boundaries placed by the corporates when it comes tightening the loose ends of corporate governance.
This article delves into the basis which the Regulators considered for concluding a mutual understanding and agreement between related parties to be an RPT notwithstanding the contention of the company. The essential question of law involved in this case was whether the allocation of certain products and geographic areas between RPs constitutes an RPT. The article contains our analysis of SEBI’s order and highlights the recent order passed by the SAT upon appeal in the matter, reaffirming the said stand.
Read more →SEBI mandates ongoing due diligence for investors and investments made by AIFs
-Vinita Nair, Senior Partner and Lavanya Tandon, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
May 03, 2024 (updated on October 9, 2024)
Background
SEBI had raised concerns relating to evergreening of loans, circumvention of FEMA norms, QIB regulations and other concerns on regulatory arbitrage by Alternative Investment Funds (‘AIFs’) in its Consultation Paper issued in January, 2024. SEBI also recorded 40+ cases wherein the structure of AIF had been abused and used to circumvent extant financial sector regulations. Read our analysis in the article ‘AIFs ail SEBI: Cannot be used for regulatory breach’ dated January 31, 2024. Further, RBI had also barred all regulated entities (REs) with respect to their investments in AIFs, discussed in our article.
Subsequent to receipt of public comments, the proposal to mandate due-diligence (‘DD’) of investors and each of the investments made by the AIF was approved in the SEBI Board meeting held on March 15, 2024. SEBI notified SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2024 effective from April 25, 2024 amending Reg. 20 of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 (‘AIF Regulations’) dealing with general obligations thereby requiring every a. AIF, b. investment manager of the AIF, c. KMP of the AIF, and d. KMP of the investment manager, to exercise specific DD with respect to their investors and investments in order to prevent facilitation of circumvention of such laws as may be specified by SEBI from time to time.
The list of laws, thresholds and conditions for DD, reporting requirements etc. has been provided in SEBI circular dated Oct 8, 2024 (‘SEBI Circular’). DD is required to be carried out prior to making of investments as per implementation standards formulated by Standard Setting Forum for AIFs (‘SFA’) and published on websites of the industry associations which are part of the SFA, i.e., Indian Venture and Alternate Capital Association (‘IVCA’), PE VC CFO Association and Trustee Association of India.
Scope of laws covered under the ambit of due diligence
The list of laws provided in the SEBI Circular comprises of the following:
Timing, thresholds for DD, reporting requirements
Pursuant to the SEBI Circular, the due diligence for various investors and investments is required to be carried out by a. AIF, b. investment manager of the AIF, c. KMP of the AIF, and d. KMP of the investment manager in accordance with the Implementation Standards. The table below indicates in brief the criteria, checkpoints and timelines for conducting due diligence along with the consequences of the outcome.
| Sr. No | Objective intended to be achieved by investors through investments in AIF scheme | Regulations/ Directions/ Norms applicable | Applicability of requirement of DD for every scheme of AIF (refer Note 1) | Checkpoints for manager for specific DD | Timing of DD | Consequence of outcome of DD & reporting requirements, if any |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benefits designated for QIBs | ICDR and other SEBI Regulations | If an investor, or investors belonging to the same group, contribute(s)50% or more to the corpus of the scheme. | Manager to check if such if investor/ investors of the same group is/are:(i) QIBs themselves or,(ii) Entities established, owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or the Government of a foreign country, including central banks and sovereign wealth funds.Note: Where such investor is an AIF or fund set up in IFSC or outside India, above check to be carried out on a look through basis. | Prior to availing benefits available to QIBs | Refer Note 2 below for existing investments & Note 3 for proposed investments.Manager to provide confirmation to SE or lead manager or merchant banker on this. |
| 2 | Benefits designated for QBs | Under SARFAESI Act | If an investor, or investors belonging to the same group, contribute(s)50% or more to the corpus of the scheme. | Same as above | Prior to making any investments or availing benefits | Refer Note 2 below for existing investments & Note 3 for proposed investments. |
| 3 | RBI regulated lenders/ entities ever-greening their stressed loans/ assets & circumventing RBI norms | RBI norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning and Restructuring of stressed loans/ assets | (a)whose manager or sponsor is an entity regulated by RBI; or,(b)that has investor(s)regulated by RBI who:(i)individually or along with investors of the same group contribute(s) 25% or more to the corpus of the scheme; or(ii) is an associate of the manager/ sponsor of the AIF;(iii) has majority or veto power [by itself, or through its representatives/ nominees] in voting over decisions of the investment committee set up by the manager to approve investment decisions of the scheme.Note: where investor is an AIF or fund set up in IFSC or outside India, criteria check to be carried out on a look through basis. | Refer Note 4. | Prior to making any investments, to avoid indirect investment by RBI regulated lender/ entity. | Refer Note 2 below for existing investments & Note 3 for proposed investments. |
| 4 | Investment from countries sharing land border with India | FEMA (NDI) Rules, 2019 | Where 50% or more of the corpus of the scheme is contributed by investors (a)who are citizens of/are from/are situated in a country which shares land border with India; or(b)whose beneficial owners, as determined in terms of Rule 9 (3) of the PMLA (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, are citizens of/are from/are situated in a country which shares a land border with India. | If the proposed investment would result in the scheme holding 10 % or more of equity/equity-linked securities issued by the company (on a fully-diluted basis), the manager to check details stated in the previous column, by collecting information on the country of investors and their beneficial owners. | Prior to making any investment | Refer Note 2 below for existing investments & Note 5 for proposed investments. |
Note 1: same group’ shall mean ‘related parties’ and ‘relatives’ as defined in SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.
Note 2:
For Sr nos 1 to 3: DD requirement is applicable for existing investments too, held by AIF schemes as on October 8, 2024:
For Sr no. 4: Reporting is required to be made for existing investments held by AIF schemes as on October 8, 2024 if the scheme holds 10% or more of equity/ equity-linked securities on a fully-diluted basis, to AIF’s custodian on or before April 07, 2025 in the format prescribed by SFA.
Note 3:
Consequence of not satisfying requirements of DD checks specified by SFA for proposed investments in case of Sr nos 1 to 3:
Note 4:
Note 5: Details of investment, which would result in the scheme holding 10% or more of equity/ equity-linked securities on a fully-diluted basis, to be reported to the custodian within 30 days of investment, in the below format specified by SFA.
DD requirement – one-time or ongoing?
As discussed in the SEBI BM Agenda, the purpose of the due-diligence check is to prevent facilitation of any circumvention of provisions of financial sector regulators, which cannot be a time specific check. An entity who intends to circumvent can design the structure in such a way that, at a later date post investment, it acquires the units of AIFs post investment, such as buying the units of an existing investor or by acquiring control over the existing investor entity, as per prior arrangement. Accordingly, it has been indicated that due diligence around investors and investments will be an ongoing one.
Applicability of DD – prospective or retrospective?
As per the SEBI circular this is applicable for existing and prospective investments. Refer Note 2 above.
Obligations of Custodian to the AIF
Power of AIF to exclude an investor
As per SEBI Circular, in cases where the outcome of DD is not satisfactory, in that case the AIF will either have to exclude the investor or investor group or abstain from making the proposed investment.
Dealing with power to exclude an investor, in April 2023 SEBI had issued ‘Guidelines with respect to excusing or excluding an investor from an investment of AIF that empowered an AIF to excuse its investor from participating in a particular investment in the following circumstances:
Figure 1: Circumstances to excuse an investor of AIF
Conclusion
The present amendment and SEBI Circular lays an onerous burden on the AIF, manager and KMP of the AIF and the manager. The DD requirement has become effective from October 8, 2024 and applies to existing investments as well. The AIFs have an actionable of evaluating the existing investments in the scheme in the light of the present amendment and ensure reporting in next 6 months. The obligation of on-going due diligence will result in a compliance burden, but is justified given the intent of law as “quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” i.e. things that cannot be done directly should not be done indirectly either. AIFs will continue ‘trust, but verify’ using the DD standards for due diligence. The trustee/ sponsor of the AIF is required to ensure that compliance status of this amendment is reported to SEBI in the ‘Compliance Test Report’ prepared by the manager in terms of Chapter 15 of Master Circular for AIFs.
Our other resources:
– Laveena Gajwani and Garima Chugh | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Loading…
Nuanced structuring, conduit investor or platform advertising punished with crores of penalties
(last updated November 21, 2024)
– Pammy Jaiswal, Partner | pammy@vinodkothari.com
Use of digital platforms for tapping the early stage or ongoing funding is being seen more often than before, and quite obviously so, in a networked world where crowdsourcing and crowd placing of almost everything is the norm[1]. Several well-known platforms have been showcasing the immense potential to raise funds for startups from either private equity investors, reaching very often to retail investors too. Popular TV shows spotlighting investments in start-ups have turned fundraising entrepreneurs into celebrities, further fueling this trend. In such an environment, it is notable to find that crowdsourcing funds by a startups is said to breach the law and is attracting huge penalties.
It is essential to consider several provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA 2013’ or ‘Act’) dealing with public issuances and private placement, along with recent orders by the RoC and SEBI. These authorities, through detailed reasoning, have imposed significant penalties for violation, highlighting that offering privately placed securities to the public—especially through online platforms—is being done in striking contravention to Act, SEBI Act as well the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021 (‘NCS Regulations’).
This article delves into the regulatory framework for private placements, instances of non-compliance, and the legal challenges highlighted by the RoC Delhi’s order as well as a recent ex-parte interim order passed by SEBI. It also explores how start-ups with innovative ideas but limited financial history can navigate these rules to raise funds without affecting enterprise and innovation.
Read more →Mahak Agarwal | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
The Guidelines for Corporate Governance (‘2016 Guidelines’) for insurers in India have been around for close to a decade now. These Guidelines were initially brought as an update to the then 2009 Guidelines for the purpose of aligning the same with the extensive changes to the governance of companies brought about by the Companies Act, 2013. As such, the new Guidelines were framed to be mostly in line with the Act of 2013 except certain provisions such as requiring the CEO to be a WTD of the Board (where the chairman is NED), prescribing fit and proper criteria for directors, requiring certain additional committees, having only profit criteria for CSR applicability, etc.
Through the years, these Guidelines have served as a valuable source of direction in ensuring corporate governance for insurers; laying down guidance for the composition, roles and responsibilities of the Board, functions of various Board Committees, appointment and remuneration of KMPs, disclosures in financial statements, etc.
Read more →-An emerging and promising financing substitute
Surabhi Chura | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
There has been a growing emphasis on sustainability across various sectors including finance, especially, with a growing mandatory requirement of disclosure of sustainability practices by companies around the world. Various sustainability-linked finance products are designed to promote the ESG objectives of the borrower while providing financial solutions.
Traditionally, loans have remained the most common way of raising finance, and sustainable finance is no exception to the same. These loans may be labelled as green loans, social loans, sustainable loans etc. Various organisations have issued voluntary guiding principles around the same[1]. A commonality in these loans is the restriction on the “use of proceeds” – that are directed towards the green, social or sustainable objectives of the borrower. Another form of sustainable finance through loans is Sustainability-linked Loans (SLLs), where the loan contains certain sustainability-linked terms. Contrary to typical green finance products, which allocate funds for designated green projects or assets, SLLs align the loan conditions with the sustainability performance of the borrower.
Other instruments of raising sustainable finance can be through the issuance of labelled bonds or GSS+ bonds. Read more about the same in our article – Sustainable finance and GSS+ bonds. One of the more recent innovative ways of financing sustainability objects of the borrower can be through Sustainability-linked derivatives.
Read more →Prapti Kanakia | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
August 2, 2024 (original article dated October 31, 2023)
SEBI Circular, effective 1st November 2023, required FPIs to provide the details of their beneficial owners without applying any threshold in the shareholding or on layers of intermediate entities until all the natural persons are identified. An enabling provision to this effect had also been inserted as Reg. 22(6) in SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2019 effective from 10th August 2023. SEBI vide circular dated 27th July, 2023, had also mandated all non-individual FPIs to obtain Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) number by 23rd January 2024[1]. However, LEI could not address the requirement of additional disclosures as the LEI data stops at the parent entity level and does not provide the details of natural persons in control of the entity.
As to what could be the trigger for these regulatory changes may be anybody’s guess, but tacitly, the SEBI circular dated 24th August, 2023[2] (Circular) introducing some significant changes in beneficial ownership details by FPIs, made several admissions. It seemingly admitted that the disclosure of beneficial ownership by FPIs took advantage of technicalities by structuring the holding of natural persons to less than 10%. It also admitted that several FPIs had concentric investments in a single corporate group, making it apparent that these FPIs were used as conduits for investing in a single entity, and therefore, there may be affiliation between the FPIs and the controlling shareholders.
Briefly stated, the changed norms required FPIs, which have either (a) 50% or more of their Indian equity AUM in a single corporate group; or (b) hold along with investor group more than INR 25,000 Crore of equity AUM in Indian markets, to disclose their beneficial ownership, drilled down to the natural person level, irrespective of the percentage of holding, unless eligible for exemption.
These requirements, though effective from 1st November 2023, gave a time frame of 90 calendar days for existing FPIs to re-adjust their holdings. Meaning, FPIs had time till 29th January 2024 to realign their investment within the threshold prescribed in order to avoid providing the details of the beneficial owner as required under the Circular. Post 29th January 2024, FPIs whose investment continued to exceed the threshold as mentioned above were required to disclose the details of beneficial owners within 30 trading days ending on 12th March 2024, which if not provided led to cancellation of the FPI registration license and in the interim, blocking of account for further purchase of equity securities and restricted voting rights in investee companies.
The new norms differed from the erstwhile norms, where BO disclosure was required if a natural person’s beneficial holding exceeded the threshold as prescribed under PML (Maintenance of Records) Rules 2005, as indicated below:
Figure I – Threshold under PML (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005
The new norms required mandatory disclosure of BO, irrespective of the percentage of holding by the BO. No matter how many layers of entities covered the identity of the BO, FPIs had to identify the natural persons holding any ownership, economic interest, or exercising control, if the FPIs fall in either of the 2 categories discussed below, unless exempted.
If, instead of investing in a diverse pool of assets, an FPI has concentrated into a single corporate group, there are apparent concerns that the FPI is being used as a facade for making investments into a single entity. Thus, if on an AUM basis, more than 50% of the AUM of an FPI is in a “single corporate group”, the FPI has to provide the BO disclosure unless exempted (refer discussion below).
Intent: As per SEBI BM Agenda, the intent is to ensure there is no circumvention of minimum public shareholding norms or disclosures under SAST Regulations or investing funds routed through land border sharing countries and therefore, the need to obtain granular information around the ownership of, economic interest in, and control of FPIs with concentrated equity holdings in single companies or corporate groups.
Meaning of single corporate group: SEBI did not provide any clarity on single corporate group and left it to the stock exchanges/depositories. Rather than limiting to the existing law, BSE/NSE[3] identified a single corporate group more practically. Apart from entities having common control i.e. holding, subsidiary, associate, joint venture, and entities where promoters have major shareholding, entities which are mentioned on the website or in the annual report of the entity as a group company, have also been considered as a part of the group.
Basis this definition, BSE on its own identified the companies forming part of a single corporate group and asked the listed entities to confirm the name of the group as identified by BSE by sending communication in terms of Para 16 of the SEBI Circular that requires Stock exchanges/ Depositories to maintain a repository containing names of companies forming a part of each single corporate group and disseminate the same publicly on their websites[4].
FPIs with an AUM of more than INR 25,000 crore, either individually or along with their investor group[5], may pose a systematic risk in the Indian markets. It will be more concerning if such FPIs are tacitly controlled by unfriendly nations, and therefore, SEBI mandated BO disclosure from such FPIs too.
Intent: As per SEBI BM Agenda, the intent was to examine from the perspective of DPIIT Press Note 3 of April 17, 2020 (although not applicable to FPI investments), if the FPI route could potentially be misused to circumvent the stipulations of the same and disrupt the orderly functioning of Indian securities markets by their actions by having a substantial number of investors from countries that share land borders with India. It is likely that the FPI with a large Indian equity portfolio may itself be situated out of a non–land bordering country, the first level/ intermediate investors in such FPIs may be based out of land–bordering countries. This reiterated the need to obtain granular information around the ownership of, economic interest in, and control of such FPIs.
There might be cases where the FPI has taken exposure over an SCG only, however, may have investments globally as well and the percentage of Indian investments might be quite less when compared with its overall global investment. In such a scenario, there are fewer chances of FPIs being used as a conduit for avoiding compliance or hiding the identity of the BO. Therefore, the FPIs which are holding more than 50% of their Indian AUM in an SCG and such investments are less than 25% of their global AUM, are exempt from providing the BO disclosure.
SEBI vide circular[6] dated 20th March, 2024, further exempted SCG focused FPIs meeting the following conditions:
Intent: As per the Consultation Paper the intent is that if FPI has exposure in SCG with no identified promoter in the apex company, there is no risk of circumvention of minimum public shareholding provision and may be exempted from the disclosure requirement. Further, there is a possibility that even though the apex company itself has no identified promoter, the FPI might still hold a significant part of its portfolio in group companies that have an identified promoter and therefore if their holding in the group is not significant exemption can be granted.
Fig. II Exemption from disclosure requirement in case there is no promoter in SCG.
FPIs whose Indian AUM is more than INR 25,000 crore and their investments in India are less than 50% of their overall global investments are exempt from providing such disclosure since the probability of such FPIs being used as a facade to obtain control over Indian markets is quite less.
FPIs that have a wide investor base or are backed by the government or government related investors do not pose any risk to Indian markets or the probability is quite low, and therefore the following categories of FPIs are exempt from providing BO disclosure. Also, if the investors in FPI fall under the below mentioned categories, then identification of BO for such investors will not be required. In case the constituents of Large sized FPIs fall under below mentioned category, their holding will also not be aggregated with their investor group to calculate the limit of Rs. 25,000 Crore.
Figure III – List of exempted FPI[7]
The below figures provide a gist of the scenarios where FPIs are required to provide the disclosure
Figure IV – Flowchart depicting the scenarios that would warrant additional disclosures
The FPIs are put under the obligation to ensure compliance with the SEBI Circular, i.e. providing the BO disclosure and monitoring the concentration limit in a single corporate group and the equity investments in India. Additionally, DDPs are also required to monitor the same and intimate the FPIs wherever they breach the criteria and once the registration of FPI is invalidated as a result of non-disclosure, the Depository will intimate the investee listed company to freeze the voting rights of such FPIs to the extent of actual shareholding or shareholding corresponding to 50% of its equity AUM on the date its FPI registration is rendered invalid, whichever is lower (refer the example below).
To ensure that there is no regulatory arbitrage amongst DDPs, a standard operating procedure (SOP)[8] has been framed & followed by all the DDPs to independently validate the conformance of FPIs with the conditions and exemptions prescribed. The SOP is based on the application of the core principles of minimising Type II errors i.e. where legitimate FPIs and their investors face challenges of onerous regulatory requirements) without adding to Type I errors i.e., where FPIs that may be breaching regulations, circumvent the need to make disclosures that would bring such breaches to light, through the ‘trust – but verify’ route.
The FPIs whose registration is rendered invalid as a result of non-disclosure are restricted from casting their vote and it is the responsibility of investee listed company to ensure that the voting rights of such FPIs are freezed to the extent of actual shareholding or shareholding corresponding to 50% of equity AUM on the date its FPI registration is rendered invalid, whichever is lower. The said information will be provided by the depository to the investee listed entity/its RTA. The following example clarifies calculation of extent of shareholding to be freezed.
Eg. FPI XYZ has 60 shares of Company A and 40 shares of Company B as on May 13, 2024, and the FPI fails to make the additional disclosures, thereby rendering its FPI registration invalid from May 13, 2024. Thereafter, FPI’s voting rights shall be restricted to shareholding corresponding to 30 shares of Company A and 20 shares of Company B.
Suppose as on July 01, 2024, the FPI has liquidated some shares and holds 15 shares of Company A and 30 shares of Company B. As on this date, the FPI will be able to exercise voting rights corresponding to 15 shares of Company A but only 20 shares of Company B (maximum permissible voting rights in Company A).[9]
The listed entities were required to intimate the details of their corporate group to the stock exchanges and any change is to be intimated within 2 working days of the effective date of such change[10].
The non-compliant FPIs are also restricted from purchasing further equity shares, however, the responsibility is not upon the listed entity to not issue equity shares to such FPIs. The DDPs/Custodian will block the account of FPIs for further purchases and they cannot participate in any corporate action which increases the equity shareholding such as rights issue, FPOs, etc. However, credit as a result of any involuntary corporate actions such as bonus issue, scheme of arrangement, etc will be allowed.
SEBI had stated that there cannot be sustained capital formation without transparency and trust. The Circular is a move to foster trust and increase transparency in the Indian Capital markets. The Circular does not seem to be a hindrance to genuine FPIs, though operational challenges might be faced by the FPIs in identifying the BOs.
[1] 180 days from the date of issue of the SEBI Circular.
[2] The said circular was approved in the SEBI Board meeting dated 28th June, 2023
[3] Circular dated 30th November 2023
[4] NSE – https://www.nseindia.com/regulations/listing-compliance
BSE – https://www.bseindia.com/static/about/corporate_group_repository.aspx
[5] Investor group means FPIs which, directly or indirectly, have common ownership of more than 50% or common control.
[6] The said exemption was approved in the SEBI Board meeting dated March 15, 2024
[7] Exemption to University Funds fulfilling certain conditions granted vide SEBI Circular dated August 01, 2024
[8] https://av.sc.com/in/content/docs/in-sop-for-granular-reporting.pdf
[9] Calculation manner as provided in SOP
[10] BSE Circular dated 09th February, 2024
Reload document 
Open in new tab 