Hindenburg row: Gautam Adani says truth has prevailed
New Delhi (PTI): Billionaire Gautam Adani reacting to the Supreme Court judgment on allegations levelled by a US short-seller against his conglomerate, said on Wednesday that truth has prevailed and his group would continue to contribute to India's growth story.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that there was no ground to order an investigation by a SIT or CBI into allegations against the Adani group, and that capital market regulator SEBI must conclude its probe within three months.
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement shows that: Truth has prevailed. Satyameva Jayate," Adani said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. "I am grateful to those who stood by us."
"Our humble contribution to India's growth story will continue. Jai Hind," he said.
A three-judge bench of the top court, headed by the Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, asked Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to complete its pending investigation within three months and said no more probes were needed, potentially drawing an end to the year-long saga triggered by Hindenburg Research's scathing report against the apples-to-airport conglomerate.
Adani group has denied all allegations.
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.
