SC seeks views of Centre, SEBI on Hindenburg report on Adani firms
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court Friday said there should be a robust mechanism to ensure that the interests of Indian investors are protected in the stock market and sought views of the Centre and market regulator SEBI on PILs alleging exploitation of innocent investors and "artificial crashing" of the Adani Group's stock value.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud sought inputs from the Finance Ministry and others on various issues, including on making the regulatory mechanism robust to protect the interests of investors in the market where capital flow is seamless in modern times.
The bench, also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, suggested forming a committee of domain experts and others, besides putting in place "robust practices to protect investors".
The Solicitor General, appearing for the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), said the market regulator and other statutory bodies were doing the needful.
The court said it was "just thinking aloud" and not making any observation on the merits of the case as "the stock markets usually run on sentiments".
It then listed the two PILs, seeking various reliefs including a probe into the Hindenburg report, for hearing on February 13.
One of the PILs, filed by lawyer Vishal Tiwari, has sought a direction to the Centre to constitute a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to inquire and investigate into the Hindenburg Research report which has made a slew of allegations against the business conglomerate led by industrialist Gautam Adani.
Another PIL, filed by advocate M L Sharma, seeks prosecution of short-seller Nathan Anderson of the US-based Hindenburg Research and his associates in India and the US for allegedly exploiting innocent investors and the "artificial crashing" of the Adani Group's stock value in the market.
Sharma has sought directions for declaring short selling an offence of fraud against the investors, to be prosecutable under section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with provisions of the SEBI Act.
Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after the Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate.
The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.
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.
K’taka HC judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
