Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

SEBI to probe Adani Group over share price decline – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India, while hearing petitions along with Vishal Tiwari Vs UOI & Oth. on dated 03/03/2023, related to the recent decline in the share price of Adani Group companies, directed SEBI to investigate whether there has been a violation of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules 1957, failure to disclose transactions with related parties and relevant information, and manipulation of stock prices. SEBI was directed to conclude the investigation within two months and submit a status report.

Multiple petitions were filed related to the recent decline in the share price of Adani Group companies, which was triggered by a report by Hindenburg Research alleging violations of securities laws by the Adani Group. The petitions seek various directions and investigations related to the alleged violations and their impact on public institutions like SBI and LIC.

WP(C) No. 162 of 2023 seeks a committee headed by a retired judge to investigate the Hindenburg Research report.

WP(Crl) No. 39 of 2023 seeks an FIR against the founder of Hindenburg Research and associates for short selling and recovery of profits for investors.

WP(C) No. 201 of 2023 seeks an investigation by a Special Investigation Team or the CBI into allegations of fraud and the role of top officials of public sector banks and lender institutions.

WP(Crl) No. 57 of 2023 seeks investigations into Adani Group companies and the role of LIC and SBI under the supervision of a sitting judge.

In its order dated 10 February 2023, the Supreme Court of India noted the need to review existing regulatory mechanisms in the financial sector to protect Indian investors from market volatility. The Solicitor General was asked to seek instructions from the Union of India on the constitution and remit of an expert committee.

During the hearing, Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Tushar Mehta, representing the petitioners and the Union of India respectively, suggested the remit of the expert committee to be constituted. SEBI also provided a brief on existing statutory regimes, regulatory mechanisms, and frameworks for investor protection.

The Court directed SEBI to investigate whether there has been a violation of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules 1957, failure to disclose transactions with related parties and relevant information, and manipulation of stock prices. SEBI was directed to conclude the investigation within two months and submit a status report.

The Court also constituted an expert committee headed by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, consisting of five members, to assess the regulatory framework and suggest measures to strengthen it. The committee was requested to investigate the causal factors leading to market volatility and suggest measures to strengthen investor awareness, secure compliance, and strengthen the statutory and regulatory framework.

All agencies of the Union Government were requested to cooperate with the committee, and expenses related to the committee's work were to be borne by the Union Government. The committee was requested to submit its report to the Court within two months in a sealed cover.

Vishal Tiwari Vs UOI & Oth.

 

Latest Legal News