New Delhi: A fresh plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to SEBI for speedy conclusion of its investigation in two pending cases related to allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani group.
The petitioner has claimed that the fresh report of US short-seller Hindenburg Research against SEBI chairperson Madhabi Buch alleging that she and her husband had stakes in obscure offshore funds used in the alleged Adani money siphoning scandal has created an and quot;atmosphere of doubt and quot; in the minds of the general public and investors.
Vishal Tiwari was one of the petitioners before the top court in 2023 and had sought a probe into the allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani group.
On January 3, in a significant win for the group, the top court had refused to transfer the probe into allegations of stock price manipulation by it to a special investigation team or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying the market regulator was carrying out a and quot;comprehensive investigation and quot; and its conduct and quot;inspires confidence and quot;.
In his fresh application, Tiwari challenged an order of the Supreme Court registrar of August 5 refusing to register his plea for expeditious completion of the pending investigation by SEBI in two cases related to the allegations levelled against the Adani group.
Referring to the latest Hindenburg report, Tiwari said, and quot;…the SEBI chief has denied these allegations as baseless and this court also held that third party reports cannot be considered. But this all has created an atmosphere of doubt in the minds of public and investors and in such circumstances, it becomes incumbent for SEBI to conclude the pending investigations and declare the conclusion of the investigations. and quot;
He added, and quot;The report cited whistleblower documents. The report comes a year and a half after its damaging report on the Adani Group that had far-reaching consequences, including the cancellation of the company and #39;s flagship Rs 20,000 crore follow-on public offer and quot;.
After the Hindenburg report was published, Madhabi Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch in a joint statement strongly denied the and quot;baseless allegations and insinuations made in the report and quot;.
The same, they asserted, and quot;Are devoid of any truth and quot;.
In his application, Tiwari told the top court that it is in public interest and the interest of the investors who lost their funds after the publication of the Hindenburg report in 2023 to know about the investigations led by SEBI and its conclusions.
Tiwari contended that by refusing to register his plea on the grounds of and quot;no reasonable cause for registration and quot;, the registrar has virtually suspended his fundamental right and has closed the door of the apex court for the petitioner forever.
and quot;This court has clearly fixed the timeline of three months for the completion of investigations by the SEBI. By using the word and quot;preferably and quot; it cannot be understood that no timeline was fixed. When specifically three months have been mentioned in the order, it is sufficient to be understood as prudent that a fixed time period is laid down for the completion of the pending investigations, and quot; his application said.
Referring to the August 10 report of Hindenburg Research, Tiwari said it alleged that the current chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and her husband had stakes in offshore funds linked to the Adani Group and #39;s alleged money siphoning scandal.
Tiwari submitted that dismissal of a plea filed by another petitioner seeking review of the January 3 verdict will have no bearing on the present application as he has not sought the review of the order nor has he challenged the same.
and quot;The nature and grounds of review petition and hellip;were totally different from the present miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner herein for the compliance of the order dated January 3, 2024, and quot; his application said.
On January 3, the top court held that the power of the court to enter the regulatory domain of SEBI in framing delegated legislation was limited and directed the market regulator to complete the two pending investigations expeditiously, preferably within three months.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had said reliance placed by the petitioners on newspaper articles or reports by third-party organisations like Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to question a comprehensive investigation by a specialised regulator does not inspire confidence.
It had noted that SEBI has completed 22 out of the 24 investigations into allegations levelled against the Adani Group.
The apex court had delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions on the Adani-Hindenburg Research row over allegations of stock price manipulation by the Indian business conglomerate.
The Adani Group had dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.
