The case involves civil appeals regarding the winding up of six mutual fund schemes by Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited. The initial order, dated February 12, 2021, interpreted Regulation 18(15)(c) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, directing the winding up of six mutual fund schemes after accepting the poll results. These schemes include Franklin India Low Duration Fund, Franklin India Ultra Short Bond Fund, Franklin India Short Term Income Plan, Franklin India Credit Risk Fund, Franklin India Dynamic Accrual Fund, and Franklin India Income Opportunities Fund. The appeals challenge the constitutional validity of Regulations 39 to 42 and their interrelation with Regulation 18(15)(c).
Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited decided to wind up six of its mutual fund schemes due to certain events that, in the opinion of the trustees, required the schemes to be wound up. These schemes included Franklin India Low Duration Fund, Franklin India Ultra Short Bond Fund, Franklin India Short Term Income Plan, Franklin India Credit Risk Fund, Franklin India Dynamic Accrual Fund, and Franklin India Income Opportunities Fund. The decision was made based on Regulation 39(2)(a) of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. The High Court interpreted Regulation 18(15)(c) to mean that the trustees must obtain the consent of the unitholders before winding up a scheme. SEBI, the trustees, and the AMC contested this interpretation, arguing that Regulations
…Sign in to view the parties.
Order interpreting Regulation 18(15)(c) and…
Supreme Court's final…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves civil appeals regarding the winding up of six mutual fund schemes by Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited. The initial order, dated February 12, 2021, interpreted Regulation 18(15)(c) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, directing the winding up of six mutual fund schemes after accepting the poll results. These schemes include Franklin India Low Duration Fund, Franklin India Ultra Short Bond Fund, Franklin India Short Term Income Plan, Franklin India Credit Risk Fund, Franklin India Dynamic Accrual Fund, and Franklin India Income Opportunities Fund. The appeals challenge the constitutional validity of Regulations 39 to 42 and their interrelation with Regulation 18(15)(c).
Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited decided to wind up six of its mutual fund schemes due to certain events that, in the opinion of the trustees, required the schemes to be wound up. These schemes included Franklin India Low Duration Fund, Franklin India Ultra Short Bond Fund, Franklin India Short Term Income Plan, Franklin India Credit Risk Fund, Franklin India Dynamic Accrual Fund, and Franklin India Income Opportunities Fund. The decision was made based on Regulation 39(2)(a) of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. The High Court interpreted Regulation 18(15)(c) to mean that the trustees must obtain the consent of the unitholders before winding up a scheme. SEBI, the trustees, and the AMC contested this interpretation, arguing that Regulations
…Order interpreting Regulation 18(15)(c) and…
Supreme Court's final…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.