NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking review of its January 3 verdict dismissing a plea for a probe by the CBI or an SIT into allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani Group as suggested by a report put out by US-based Hindenburg Research.
“Having perused the review petition, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed,” said a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The order was passed on May 8 and published on the apex court’s website on Monday.
While dismissing the review plea, the apex court said that no case was made out by petitioner Anamika Jaiswal against its January 3 verdict. In that order, the SC had held that there was no valid ground to enter into the regulatory domain of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and direct it to hand over its probe to an alternative agency as sought by petitioners in a batch of pleas, which relied on the findings of the Hindenburg Research report. “There was no material to show Sebi was lackadaisical in taking steps or had a regulatory failure, warranting a probe by a SIT or CBI,” it said.
According to the review petition, there was fresh material to show the Adani Group violated Rule 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules. The rule says listed companies need to maintain minimum public shareholding of 25% within specified periods. This factor, which was not considered in the January 3 judgement, needs a thorough probe, the review plea said.
The plea had said the markets regulator in its report had only updated the court about the status of the 24 investigations it undertook following the allegations, whether they were complete or incomplete, but did not disclose any findings or details of action taken.
In its January judgment, the SC noted that Sebi completed investigation in 22 out of the 24 matters. It also noted that the regulator was conducting a “comprehensive investigation” into the allegations and its conduct “inspires confidence”.
