Posts

Eligibility and disclosures under rights issue rationalized

– Qasim Saif, Executive

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Background

SEBI has on 23rd September 2020 released a press release[1] intimating about amendments to be made in SEBI ICDR Regulations, 2018 (“ICDR Regulations”/ “Regulations”) 2018. Further, on 28th September 2020, SEBI issued a notification bringing the SEBI (ICDR) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2020[2] (“Amendment”) which was notified in official gazette on 1st October 2020. The Amendment is specifically focused for matters in relation to rights issue by listed entities. Several changes have been made which includes increasing the threshold for applicability, truncated disclosures in the letter of offer, removing the requirement for appointing a compliance officer, etc. At various places, the amendment is for the purpose of clarification or straightening of language of the Regulations.

In this article we have discussed the major amendments along with the probable impact.

Areas for amendments

1.     Increase in issue size for checking applicability

Erstwhile, ICDR Regulations were applicable in case of a rights issue for a size exceeding INR 10 crores. Further, the draft letter of offer (“draft LOF”) in such cases is required to be filled with SEBI for its observations. In other cases, i.e. where the issue size is less than INR10 crores the letter of offer (“LOF”) is to be filled with SEBI for information and dissemination on the SEBI’s website in accordance with Regulation 3. As a matter of temporary relaxation, SEBI vide its Circular dated 21st April, 2020 (April Circular) increased the aforesaid threshold to INR 25 crore for issues opening on or before March, 2020.

By virtue of the Amendment, the limit of INR 10 crores under Regulation 3 has been increased to INR 50 crores.  This would mean that while the general conditions and compliance will now be applicable to issue size of INR 50 crore or more, listed companies with a lower issue size will be required to file the LOF with SEBI for informative purpose.

As a result of the Amendment, while the applicability threshold has been increased, however, the companies with a lower issue size are still required to prepare the LOF in terms of the requirements of the ICDR Regulations and file the same with SEBI. Accordingly, while the change will surely be of relief to the entities which are now outside the applicability these Regulations, however, preparation of the LOF in terms of these Regulations will still be required.

Further to this, it should also be noted that practically filling of draft LOF for the purpose of obtaining observations from SEBI and then making prescribed changes generally takes several months. Accordingly, now since many entities will not be required to take the observations from SEBI, the same should help entities raise funds faster.

2.     Relaxation in eligibility to make right issue, for members of promoter group and promoter or director of company who are director in entities, which were earlier debarred by SEBI

Regulation 61 of ICDR Regulations state that an issuer shall not be eligible to make a rights issue of specified securities:

a) if the issuer, any of its promoters, promoter group or directors of the issuer are debarred from accessing the capital market by the Board;

b)if  any  of  the  promoters  or  directors  of  the  issuer  is  a  promoter  or  director  of  any  other company which is debarred from accessing the capital market  by the Board.

c) if any of its promoters or directors is a fugitive economic offender.

Further, explanation to the said Regulations state that “the  restrictions  under  (a)  and  (b)  above  will  not  apply  to  the  promoters  or directors  of  the  issuer  who  were  debarred  in  the  past  by  the  Board  and  the period  of debarment is already over as on the date of filing of the draft letter of offer.”

However, the language of the said explanation did not cover promoter group or other entities where the promoter or director of the issuer holds similar and which is debarred by SEBI. This lacuna in the language of the existing text gives an impression to result in a permanent restriction on right issue if the members of the promoter group were debarred or unless the concerned person vacated the post in the other entity which was debarred by SEBI from accessing the capital market.

The explanation shall now read as follows “the  restrictions  under  (a)  and  (b)  above  will  not  apply  to  the  persons  or  entities  mentioned therein  who  were  debarred  in  the  past  by  the  Board  and  the period  of debarment is already over as on the date of filing of the draft letter of offer.” After the amendment, all the mentioned persons or entities are now covered under the explanation and hence on completion of period of debarment, the issuer shall be eligible to undertake the right issue.

The above amendment is much needed clarification in the language rather than a relaxation

3.     Firm arrangement towards 75% of finance of capital expenditures only

Regulation 62 (1) (c) of ICDR Regulations require that issuer shall make  firm  arrangements  of  finance  through  verifiable  means  towards  seventy  five per cent of the stated means of finance for the specific project proposed to be funded from right issue,  excluding  the  amount  to  be  raised  through  the  proposed  rights  issue  or through existing identifiable internal accruals.

The Amendment introduces an explanation to the said clause stating “For the purpose of this regulation ‘finance for the specific project’ shall mean finance of capital expenditures only.”

The addition of explanation provides a clarity on calculation of amount that the company has to make firm arrangement for. The explanation also provides a simplification in compliance, as in most projects the capital expenditure are highly predictable unlike revenue expenditure that vary significantly and may not be estimated accurately.

4.     Removing the requirement to appoint a Compliance officer.

The Regulation 69 (8) of the ICDR Regulations require appointment of Compliance Officer by the issuer who  shall  be  responsible  for  monitoring  the compliance of the securities laws and for redressal of investors’ grievances. The said regulation has been omitted by the amendments.

Further the name of Part IV of Chapter III of ICDR Regulations has been suitably changed from “Appointment of Lead Managers, Other Intermediaries and Compliance Officer” to “Appointment of Lead Managers and Other Intermediaries”

Removing the requirement to appoint a compliance officer is a much needed amendment since the lead manager/ designated lead manager to the issue is any way required to ensure compliance with several applicable laws. Accordingly, it was a redundant practice to designate a compliance officer separately for a rights issue.

5.     Changes in Disclosure requirements

Regulation 70 of ICDR Regulations require that certain disclosure be made under LOF and Draft LOF. The SEBI has proposed that specified entities shall be required to make disclosures in format provided under Part A or Part-B of Schedule VI.

Disclosure requirements under Part B of Schedule VI have been rationalized to avoid duplication of information in LOF, especially the information which is already available in public domain and is disclosed by the companies in compliance with the disclosure requirements under SEBI listing regulations.

However, the Issuer not fulfilling the conditions above will be required to make disclosures in the format given in Part B-1 of Schedule VI, the disclosures in Part B-1 would be more detailed than that in Part B, however it shall be truncated as compared to Part A, that is applicable for IPO or FPO.

The Part-B of Schedule VI states that following entities shall be eligible to make disclosers under the given format –

1) Issuer has been filing periodic reports, statements and information in compliance with listing regulations for the last one year (instead of the last three years as required earlier) immediately preceding the date of filing Draft LOF or LOF as the case may be.

2) Statement above shall be available on website of Stock Exchanges.

3) the  issuer  has  investor  grievance-handling  mechanism  which  includes meeting of the Stakeholders’ Relationship Committee at frequent intervals, appropriate delegation of power by the board of directors of the issuer as regards  share  transfer  and  clearly  laid  down  systems  and  procedures  for timely and satisfactory redressed of investor grievances

The mentioned rationalization of disclosures would not only save the listed entities from duplication of task of providing same information that is already disclosed repeatedly but will also ease the accessing of reports by the stakeholders. The decluttering of the disclosures would be beneficial for all, Issuer, investor as well as regulators.

6.      Relaxation in Minimum 90% subscription criteria

Regulation 86(1) of ICDR Regulations require that the minimum subscription to be received in the right issue shall be at least ninety per cent of the offer through the offer document, the said limit was temporally relaxed to 75% by the April Circular.

The amendment proposes to remove mandatory requirement of minimum 90% subscription in case the issue is for the purpose of financing other than capital expenditure for a project, provided that the promoters undertake to subscribe fully to their portion of rights entitlement.

The said relaxation should help the issuers looking for financing their business by right issue, specifically for general financing needs of business. The condition that the promoters would be needed to subscribe their entitlements completely would help safeguard the interest of other subscribers.

7.     Application in plain paper to contain all the disclosures under the ICDR Regulations

Regulation 78 of ICDR Regulation allow shareholders to make application on plain paper in case he/she has not received application from for the right issue. SEBI has included a proviso to the regulation stating that “SCSBs shall accept such application forms only if all details required for making the application as per these regulations are specified in the plain paper application”.

On a general basis an application form contains following details to be entered by the shareholder-

– Name of Issuer

– Name and address of the Equity Shareholder including joint holders;

– Registered Folio Number/DP and Client ID no.;

– Number of Equity Shares held as on Record Date;

– Number of Rights Equity Shares entitled to;

– Number of Rights Equity Shares applied for;

– Number of additional Rights Equity Shares applied for, if any;

– Total number of Rights Equity Shares applied for;

– Total amount paid

– Particulars of cheque/demand draft;

– Savings/Current Account Number and name and address of the bank where the Equity Shareholder will be etc.

8.     FTRI in case of pending Show Cause Notice

Regulation 99 of the ICDR Regulations provide for eligibility criteria for Fast Track Rights Issue (FTRI). FTRI is a faster method of raising funds through right issue whereby the issuer is not required to file draft LOF to SEBI for observations, this makes the process of right issue comparatively faster, enabling issuer to get funds faster.

Clause (h) of the aforesaid regulation restricts the rights issue in case show cause notice have been issued or prosecution proceedings have been initiated by the  Board  and  pending  against  the  issuer  or  its  promoters  or  whole-time  directors.

The amendment provides that the above clause shall now exclude the cases where notice is issued in regards to proceedings for imposition of penalty. However it shall be necessary that disclosures along with potential adverse impact on the issuer are made in the letter of offer.

The said amendment would help compliant companies against whom SCN is issued for violations that are not of serious nature and require only imposition of penalty. As discussed FTRI facilitates faster and cheaper raising of finance by the company, the relaxation would promote the companies to undertake right issue for fund raising activities.

Conclusion

Rights issue has been constantly gaining popularity in India with corporate giants such as Reliance Industries, Shriram Transport Finance and Bajaj electrical have chosen the same as a way to raise funds during the pandemic. In order to promote the right issue as a way of raising funds and ease the funding for listed companies the SEBI has made the amendment.

The Amendments are in the directions to make the offer by way of rights issue easier and do away with disclosures or compliance requirements which were duplicated or redundant. Further, the relaxation in minimum subscription and eligibility criteria for FTRI should come to the rescue of the listed entities to raise funds in the times when most businesses are facing liquidity issues.

[1] https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/HomeAction.do?doListing=yes&sid=6&ssid=23&smid=0

[2] https://www.sebi.gov.in/web/?file=https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachdocs/sep-2020/1601363043311.pdf#page=1&zoom=page-width,-16,610

Our related write ups can be viewed here-

https://vinodkothari.com/2020/04/highlights-of-sebis-temporary-relaxations-for-rights-issue/

https://vinodkothari.com/2020/04/mof-amends-fdi-norms-for-rights-issue-and-insurance-sector/

[1] https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/HomeAction.do?doListing=yes&sid=6&ssid=23&smid=0

[2] https://www.sebi.gov.in/web/?file=https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachdocs/sep-2020/1601363043311.pdf

Contra trade restrictions on promoter group

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Link to Informal Guidance by SEBI – https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/commondocs/sep-2020/SEBI%20let%20Raghav%20IG_p.pdf

SEBI automates continual disclosures under PIT and SAST regulations

Physical disclosures to continue in certain cases

Updated as on September 23, 2020, June 16, 2021, August 25, 2021 and March 07, 2022

– Team Vinod Kothari and Company

(corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction & Background

SEBI, in its Board meeting dated June 25, 2020, discussed and approved necessary amendments[1] in SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PIT Regulations’) that were notified vide gazette notification[2] dated July 17, 2020. One of the amendments made pertained to insertion of enabling power to prescribe format for continual disclosures under PIT Regulations in order to mandate System Driven Disclosures (‘SDD’).

Earlier, in December 2015[3], SEBI had notified SDD in the first phase pertaining to acquisition/ disposal of equity shares by promoters/ promoter group based on specified thresholds under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (‘SAST Regulations’) and PIT Regulations and pledge of equity shares by promoters/promoter group under the SAST Regulations. Thereafter, in May 2018[4] next phase of SDD was implemented for disclosure under Reg. 29(1) and 29(2) of SAST Regulations by non-promoters and continual disclosures under Reg. 7(2) of PIT Regulations for directors and employees. Refer Figure 1: Flow of events in relation to SDD.

Thereafter, SEBI vide circular[5] dated September 09, 2020, superseded the aforesaid circulars dated December 01, 2015, December 21, 2016 and May 28, 2018 with respect to implementation of SDDs under PIT Regulations and mandated SDD for trading in equity shares and equity derivative instruments i.e. Futures and Options of the listed company (wherever applicable) by the entities. Read more

SEBI Settlement Scheme 2020

-by smriti@vinodkothari.com

SEBI during FY 2018-19 conducted an investigation into the trading activities in illiquid stock options at BSE for a period of 1st April, 2014 to 30th September, 2015. As a result of the investigation, SEBI observed that there were large scale reversal trades executed in stock options by various entities.

Reversal trades refers to trading i.e. buying and selling of stocks from and to the same counterparty during a day which creates artificial trade units of stocks in the question. In such trades one party suffer losses and buy stock at higher rate and within seconds execute reversal trade and sell these stocks to the same counter party at a relatively lower rate thereby resulting to gains for other party. Supreme Court in the appeal no. 1969 dated 8th February, 2018 quoted:

Trading is always with the aim to make profits. But if one party consistently makes loss and that too in pre-planned and rapid reverse trades, it is not genuine, it is an unfair trade practice.”

Such kind of transactions executed by entities were considered non-genuine by SEBI as they were not executed with the basic trading rationale. These transactions were prohibited pursuant to the provisions of section 4(2) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (‘PFUTP Regulations’) which provides:

“(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice if it involves fraud and may include all or any of the following, namely: —

(a) indulging in an act which creates false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities market;”

Pursuant to such restriction under the PFUTP Regulations, SEBI issued show cause notices to various entities (approximately 14000 entities) demanding justification for executing reversal trades at a loss. Entities who were involved in executing such trades were liable for penalty under section 15J of the SEBI Act.  Generally, SEBI has levied a fine of approximately Rs. 5 lakhs on entities i.e. the minimum under section 15J of SEBI Act, however, the parameter of determination of fine was subjective and hence even higher fine has been levied to some entities.

Rationale behind the scheme

SEBI was penalising entities for non-genuinely trading in illiquid stock options through price manipulation under the PFUTP Regulations and SEBI Act. However, tax evasion with respect to such trading activities were to be separately investigated and penalised by IT Authorities. Hence, most entities were contesting the SEBI order with higher authorities to avoid notice/regulatory action from the IT Authorities.

The Hon’ble SAT vide its order dated 14th October, 2019 in the matter of R S Ispat Ltd vs SEBI directed:

We are adjourning this matter today, so that SEBI may consider holding a Lok Adalat or adopting other alternative dispute resolution process with regard to the illiquid stock options”

Hence, to settle the proceedings initiated for such entities, SEBI introduced a scheme to settle the matter.

Scheme

Regulation 26 of SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018, empowers SEBI to specify settlement schemes as and when desirable for defaults conducted by entities. SEBI for the purpose of reducing the administrative burden of pending proceedings relating to trading in illiquid stock options, issued a public notice on 27th July, 2020 for introduction of Settlement Scheme, 2020.

Pursuant to the scheme a one-time settlement opportunity is being provided to entities involved in dealing of illiquid stock options during the period from 1st April, 2014 to 30th September, 2015. The validity of the scheme is for a period ranging from 1st August, 2020 to 31st October, 2020.

Settlement mechanism

The scheme provides an indicative criteria for determining the settlement amount on the basis of:

  1. Artificial volume created
  2. Number of non-genuine trades
  3. Numbers of contracts resulting in creation of artificial trades

Further, uniform consolidated settlement factor of 0.55 shall be applied to calculate the net settlement amount payable by entities. For the purpose of determination, SEBI has introduced a separate web page where settlement amount for the purpose of such orders can be calculated. This can be accessed at Link

Process of determination of settlement amount
1. Company has to provide two information:

a)     Category of payment i.e. for order or settlement

b)    PAN details of the entity

2. The following details gets auto filed by providing PAN details:
i)                Name of the entity
ii)              Entity type
iii)            Number of contracts reversed
iv)             Number of non-genuine trades
v)              Artificial volume of trades
3. The settlement amount gets automatically calculated. The payment amount is segregated as follows:
a)     Settlement amount (as calculated using the 0.55 factor) b)    Registration fees

For bodies corporate: Rs. 25,000

For individuals: Rs. 15,000

5. Mandatory attachments:

1.     Income tax returns for last 3 years

2.     Copy of PAN card of the entity/individual

3.     Undertaking and waivers as required under the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018

5. Payment process:

For the purpose of making payment under the settlement scheme, the entity has to withdraw any pending proceeding in the said matter. After withdrawal, entities can use this web page for payment of settlement amount.

The settlement amount is directly proportionate to the artificial volume of trades executed by the entities. We have obtained data of 15 entities on sample basis for analysis of settlement amount. The same is represented below:

Sl.No. No. of contracts reversed No. of non-genuine trades executed

 

Artificial volume of trades Settlement amount
1. 107 970 7,97,21,572 39,77,500
2. 85 750 2,76,68,000 35,12,500
3. 21 396 2,00,25,000 25,72,500
4. 83 492 2,75,50,000 33,57,500
5. 210 512 1,21,77,000 39,77,500
6. 165 612 2,55,25,750 39,77,500
7. 1672 4968 30,70,27,560 83,17,500
8. 191 526 2,91,34,000 39,77,500
9. 12 92 2,79,61,000 21,17,500
10. 252 666 7,17,69,750 42,87,500
11. 14 83 1,22,92,500 19,62,500
12. 682 1646 7,16,45,000 50,62,500
13. 9 194 81,29,000 21,07,500
14. 14 116 1,25,98,000 21,07,500
15. 61 332 3,37,92,000 30,47,500

 

Hence, basis the aforesaid table, we understand that higher the artificial trades executed, the higher will be the settlement amount. However, the point of focus here is where SEBI has levied fine of approximately Rs. 5 lakhs on entities, why will entities pay a higher settlement amount then the actual fine. Further, the whole intent of settling a proceeding is to settle it at a lower cost than actual fine. Here, the fine ranges around Rs. 5 lakhs, however, the settlement amount ranges from Rs. 20 lakhs and may go upto Rs, 83 lakhs or even higher.

Process of availing the settlement scheme

Whether settlement proceedings shall avoid scrutiny of IT department?

As regards penal provisions under IT provisions are concerned, the details of trading in illiquid stock options is linked to the PAN details of the entity. Further, the portal also requires to attach the ITR of last three years of the entity.

In this regard, whether the intent of the settlement proceeding is also to channelize information and link the proceedings with IT department, is still unknown. Further, the fate of intention of entities to delay/waive the IT proceedings by either challenging the SEBI order in higher court or settling the proceedings shall be seen only when IT departments start sending letters to such entities.

Generally, settlement refers to neither admitting nor denying any non-compliance. Therefore, entities opting for settlement scheme may have a better chance before the IT department. However, whether this can also safeguard entities them from being penalised by the IT authorities is uncertain.

Conclusion

The entities who opt for settlement scheme has to pay the settlement amount through the portal after withdrawing any pending proceedings. As regards, entities which do not opt for such schemes, the proceedings, as is, shall continue.

 

Our presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK6QOm4k8Rw 

SEBI clarifies trading in unrestricted securities and confidential nature of restricted list

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Link to Informal Guidance – https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/commondocs/aug-2020/IG%20Let%20by%20SEBI%20KP_p.PDF

SEBI prescribes stricter regime for Proxy advisors

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

SEBI has on 03rd August, 2020, issued procedural guidelines for Proxy Advisors nearly a year after the Report of the Working Group on Proxy Advisors was published. Read our analysis on the same below. Read more

Update: PSCs get another year to comply with MPS requirements

Ankit Vashishth, Executive

Vinod Kothari and Company; corplaw@vinodkothari.com

To prevent concentration of shares in the hands of a few market players and to ensure a sound and healthy public float to stave off any manipulation or perpetration of other unethical activities in the securities market, it is imperative that the shareholding of listed companies is not blocked by promoters and certain percentage of free float is available for trading by the public.  Regulation 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 mandates all listed companies to maintain a Minimum Public Shareholding (‘MPS’) of 25%. Further, to comply with the said requirement, SEBI vide its circulars dated November 30, 2015[1] and February 22, 2018[2] prescribed the manner for achieving MPS.

The timeline for achieving MPS varies for listed public sector companies and listed companies. With regard to the listed public sector companies, the deadline to meet the MPS was 2 years from the commencement of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018[3]  which expired on 2nd August, 2020.

Considering the unfavorable market conditions and difficulty in meeting the MPS requirement during the outbreak of the pandemic, the Ministry of Finance has vide its notification dated July 31, 2020[4] has extended the time period by 1 year i.e. till August 2, 2021 for listed public sector companies.

Initiation of MPS for PSCs

MPS requirements for listed public sector companies initiated in the year 2010[5], when these companies were given a timeline of 3 years to comply with 10% MPS requirements.

Later, as per prevalent market conditions the Central Govt. in August, 2014[6] increased this threshold to 25% and these companies were given a timeline of 3 years to comply with MPS requirement which was subsequently increased to 4 years in July, 2017[7]. Considering the difficulty faced by such companies in diluting their shareholding, the Central Govt. in August 2018[8], allowed a fresh timeline of 2 years i.e. upto August 2, 2020 to such companies to comply with such requirements.

Current Scenario

PSUs constitute around 7.22% of the capital market in India and according to the shareholding data provided by bsepsu.com[9] there are a total of 64 listed CPSEs in India out of which 26 of them have less than 25% public shareholding. This list is dominated by companies which include Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, General Insurance Corporation of India, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd, New India Assurance Company Ltd and counting. There are even such companies in which more than 90% of the shareholding is alone held by the government.

Central Government in Dec, 2019[10] gave ‘in-principle’ approval for strategic disinvestment of 33 CPSEs including subsidiaries, units and Joint Ventures with sale of majority stake of Government of India and transfer of management control. Also, companies like Rites Limited[11] and Coal India Limited[12] in recent times have tried to meet MPS requirements via Offer for Sale.

Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the stock market has already crashed and is now showing small signs of revival. Where listed companies are unable to comply with normal regulatory requirements in this current environment which are constant and urgent in nature, the extension in its 4th attempt to the PSCs will save them from the badge of non-compliance.

Read our similar write ups:

https://vinodkothari.com/2017/09/sebis-yet-another-move-to-ensure-minimum-public-shareholding/

https://vinodkothari.com/2018/02/sebi-qualifies-qip-for-achieving-mps/

Read our other articles on Corplaw : https://vinodkothari.com/category/corporate-laws/

Link to our Youtube Channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzB-ZviIMcuA_1uv6jATbg

[1] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/nov-2015/manner-of-achieving-minimum-public-shareholding_31141.html

[2] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/feb-2018/manner-of-achieving-minimum-public-shareholding_37953.html

[3] http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2018/188171.pdf

[4] http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2020/220809.pdf

[5] http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2010/E_440_2011_011.pdf

[6] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/rules/aug-2014/notification-securities-contracts-regulation-second-amendment-rules-2014_28373.html

[7]  https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/rules/jul-2017/securities-contracts-regulation-third-amendment-rules-2017-w-e-f-july-3-2017-_35291.html

[8] http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2018/188171.pdf

[9] http://www.bsepsu.com/gov-policy-hp.asp

[10] https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1594731

[11] https://rites.com/upload/misc/Balancesheet/INTIMATION-FOR-RITES-EMPLOYEE-OFS.pdf

[12] https://www.coalindia.in/DesktopModules/DocumentList/documents/10112018182944.pdf