The company, late Wednesday evening, shot off comprehensive replies to explanations sought separately by these agencies, after securing a final nod from its chairman Mr Nusli Wadia.

The explanation was prepared after a series of meetings Mr Wadia held with investment banker Mr Nimesh Kampani, legal advisors and senior company officials.

A senior Bombay Dyeing official, when contacted by The Financial Express, confirmed the company’s decision to send clarifications to BSE, Sebi and CLB separately. He however, declined to divulge further details on the grounds that it would jeopardise the company’s interests.

The stock price of Bombay Dyeing closed 2.6 per cent higher at Rs 106.10 on BSE and 3.8 per cent higher at Rs 106 on NSE.

Sebi board member Jayanth R Varma told The Financial Express that the regulator had sought to know from Mr Bajoria who these “friends and relatives” are, who hold an additional 2 per cent, over and above the 14 per cent cornered by the jute baron from market operations. He said Sebi had given a time-limit to him to send in his reply.

When contacted, BSE executive director AN Joshi said the exchange in the normal course took cognisance of acquirers crossing the 5 per cent trigger point and sought explanations from them insuch cases.

CLB officials said on Wednesday that the Board will now list the case forhearing in November. Proceedings will take place only after the two sidesfile their replies. The respondent party has to file its reply and thepetititioner company, Bombay Dyeing, has to file its rejoinder. Companyofficials, meanwhile, are hoping for a favourable ruling from theseagencies.

The Bombay Dyeing official ruled out the possibility of any counter offer atpresent especially when it was in the process of replying to BSE, Sebi andCLB. "The issue of whether or not to make a counter offer may be possibleonce the directives from these agencies come," he added.

The company sources said they were hoping that Mr Arun Bajoria's corneringof stake in Bombay Dyeing would not be found to have met the conditions ofthe Sebi takeover code and therefore not pose any major threat to thecompany. The explanation largely talked about the company's determination tomaintain its identity in the present form and possible measures to "thwart"such takeover bids.