A mechanism under SEBI regulations allowing listed companies to raise capital by issuing shares or convertible securities to Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) — the fastest equity fundraising route, with no lock-in for QIBs and minimal regulatory requirements.
Explanation
A Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP) under Chapter VI of SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 is available only to listed companies with minimum net worth of Rs. 25 crores. Securities are issued exclusively to Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) — typically mutual funds, FPIs, insurance companies, AIFs, banks. Key features: (a) no lock-in for QIBs; (b) floor price based on 2-week average market price (no 26-week history needed like in preferential); (c) allotment must be to minimum 2 allottees; (d) no single allottee may receive more than 50% of the issue; (e) Board approval needed (no shareholder approval required, though it is good practice). QIPs became popular as the fastest large-scale equity fundraising route — institutional investors can be approached directly without the cost and time of a public issue.
Statutory Provision
Regulation 172(1), SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018: 'A listed issuer may make a qualified institutions placement of specified securities to qualified institutional buyers, subject to the conditions specified in this Chapter.' Regulation 176: 'The issuer shall not make a qualified institutions placement unless a special resolution has been passed by its shareholders.' [Note: many companies pass blanket annual QIP resolutions.]
A petition filed before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers) seeking to quash (set aside) an FIR, chargesheet, or criminal proceedings on the ground that they are frivolous, vexatious, a misuse of process, or that no prima facie case is made out.
Explanation
A quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC) invokes the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The ground for quashing: (a) the FIR/complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence; (b) the proceedings constitute an abuse of process of the court; (c) the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not make out a prima facie offence; (d) the proceedings are patently frivolous or vexatious; (e) no offence of the kind alleged is disclosed on the face of the FIR; or (f) it is a settled case compounded by the parties and continuation of prosecution serves no useful purpose. The Supreme Court has laid down the principles for quashing in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604.
Statutory Provision
Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC): 'Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.'
A petition filed before the High Court (Article 226) seeking a writ of quo warranto — challenging the authority of a person holding a public office, requiring them to show by what legal authority they claim to hold the office.
Explanation
A quo warranto petition challenges the right of a person to hold a public office. The writ requires the holder to show 'by what authority' (quo warranto) they claim the office. It is available only for: (a) public offices — offices of public character created by statute or constitutional provision; (b) not private or voluntary offices; and (c) offices actually being held by the respondent. Common situations: challenging the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, Director-General, Chairman of a statutory body, member of a commission — where the appointment was made in violation of statutory qualifications or procedures.
Statutory Provision
Article 226(1), Constitution of India: power to issue writs including 'quo warranto' — available against persons holding public offices without legal authority. The leading Indian case: <em>University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao</em> AIR 1965 SC 491 — the Supreme Court held that quo warranto lies to challenge the appointment of a teacher to a public university where the appointment was made in violation of statutory procedures.
