Supreme Court Junks Lawyer’s Plea On Hindenburg-Adani Group Matter
Vishal Tiwari sought to direct SEBI to submit its investigation report;
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99770/99770799b969a0b61853abc9c4539f50a6304b65" alt="Supreme Court Junks Lawyer’s Plea On Hindenburg-Adani Group Matter Hindenburg-&-Adani"
Supreme Court Junks Lawyer’s Plea On Hindenburg-Adani Group Matter
Vishal Tiwari sought to direct SEBI to submit its investigation report
The Supreme Court has dismissed a lawyer’s application, challenging the court Registrar’s 05 August 2024 order, which declined to register his previous application on the Hindenburg-Adani Group matter.
A bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala rejected the application filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari to direct the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to submit its conclusive investigation report on Hindenburg’s allegations against the Adani Group.
The Registrar had declined to accept his miscellaneous application stating that it did not disclose any reasonable cause.
The application stated that due to the recent Hindenburg controversy, it becomes incumbent for the SEBI to conclude the pending investigations and declare the result.
The petitioner urged, "Allow the appeal against the 5 August 2024 order of the Registrar (Judicial listing) Supreme Court of India and direct the Registry to register the miscellaneous application and list before the Supreme Court for appropriate orders.”
The petition further read that the apex court Registrar refused to register miscellaneous applications under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 stating no reasonable cause. It meant suspending the fundamental right of the petitioner and closed the door of the court for the petitioner.
The petitioner said that the conclusion drawn by the Registrar was contrary to the court’s 03 January 2024 directions.
The advocate stated, "The top court fixed the timeline of three months for the completion of investigations by SEBI. By using the word ‘preferably’ 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 is laid down for the completion of the pending investigations.”
The plea mentioned that the SEBI chief having denied the allegation as baseless and the top court holding that third-party reports could not be considered, it has created doubt in the minds of the public and the investors.
The plea read, "In a blog post, Hindenburg claimed that 18 months after its initial report on Adani, SEBI showed a ‘surprising lack of interest’ in investigating Adani's alleged web of undisclosed Mauritius and offshore shell entities.
“Citing the whistleblower documents, Hindenburg alleged that the SEBI Chairperson and her husband were involved in the same offshore Bermuda and Mauritius funds allegedly controlled by Vinod Adani, the elder brother of Adani Group Chairman, Gautam Adani. These funds are believed to have been used for round-tripping funds and inflating stock prices.”