Adani-Hindenburg row: SC directs SEBI to complete probe in pending cases within 3 months
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the SEBI to complete its probe into two pending cases relating to allegations against the Adani group within three months.
Holding that it cannot regulate SEBI's power of investigation, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud noted that SEBI has completed its probe in 22 out of 24 cases relating to allegations against the Adani group.
The apex court also said that the facts of the case do not warrant the transfer of the probe into the matter to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or other probe agency.
The top court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions on the Adani-Hindenburg row over allegations of stock price manipulation by the Indian corporate giant.
While pronouncing the verdict, the CJI said the power of the top court to enter the regulatory domain of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) was limited.
The judgment on the PILs, filed by lawyers Vishal Tiwari, M L Sharma, Congress leader Jaya Thakur, and Anamika Jaiswal, was reserved on November 24 last year.
The Adani Group stocks got bludgeoned on the bourses after Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including those about fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate.
The Adani Group dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.
VIDEO | "I filed a PIL before the Supreme Court after the Hindenburg report. After this report, we saw a huge fluctuation in the share market and a lot of investors lost their money, and there were some doubts about the report whether it was a pre-planned thing to hurt the… pic.twitter.com/xE8sDy3XR3
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 3, 2024
VIDEO | "The Supreme Court has very clearly said that whatever report, given by any third party, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof and there must be an evidence that may support (the case)," says advocate and petitioner Vishal Tiwari on SC verdict on Adani-Hindenburg row. pic.twitter.com/HqN9F7cr4J
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 3, 2024
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Where is question of offence when there is consensual relationship? SC asks
New Delhi (PTI): Where is the question of an offence when a relationship is consensual? the Supreme Court on Monday asked a woman who had challenged an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had quashed an FIR against her former live-in partner in a case of alleged sexual assault on a false promise of marriage.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the woman lived together with the man and also had a child from him.
"Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They were living together and she also had a child from him and then there is no marriage and now, she says sexual assault? For 15 years they lived together," Justice Nagarathna remarked.
The woman's counsel told the court that she had lost her husband earlier and was introduced to the accused by her brother-in-law.
The court was also told that the accused had promised to marry her and sexually exploited her.
Justice Nagarathna then asked, "Why did she go and live with him before marriage?"
"She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Legal bond is not there. He walks out, that is the risk in a live-in relationship. So once he walks out, it does not become a criminal offence," she said.
The woman's lawyer submitted that the accused was already married and had concealed this fact.
"See, if there was marriage, the question of her rights would have been better. She could have filed regarding bigamy. She could have filed for maintenance. She would have got those reliefs. Now since there is no marriage, they live together, this is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?" Justice Nagarathna said.
She suggested that the woman could pursue remedies, such as maintenance for the child, and asked the parties to go for mediation.
"Even if he goes to jail, what will she gain? We can think of some maintenance for the child. Child is now seven years (old). At least, some monetary compensation can be made for the child," Justice Nagarathna said.
The apex court issued a notice in the matter and asked the parties to explore if a settlement could be reached between the petitioner and the accused.
