{"id":95133,"date":"2024-07-15T20:11:15","date_gmt":"2024-07-15T20:11:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/07\/15\/adani-hindenburg-case-sc-dismisses-plea-seeking-review-of-its-jan-3-verdict\/"},"modified":"2024-07-15T20:11:15","modified_gmt":"2024-07-15T20:11:15","slug":"adani-hindenburg-case-sc-dismisses-plea-seeking-review-of-its-jan-3-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/07\/15\/adani-hindenburg-case-sc-dismisses-plea-seeking-review-of-its-jan-3-verdict\/","title":{"rendered":"Adani-Hindenburg case: SC dismisses plea seeking review of its Jan 3 verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Adani-Hindenburg<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court<\/a> has dismissed a plea of Anamika Jaiswal<\/a>, one of the petitioners in the Adani-Hindenburg case<\/a>, who had sought review of the January 3 judgment that refused to order a Special Investigation Team or a CBI probe into US short-seller<\/a> Hindenburg Research\u2019s allegations of fraud<\/a>, misgovernance<\/a>, and stock price manipulation<\/a> by the Adani Group<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra rejected the Jaiswal’s plea for reconsideration of its previous judgment.<\/p>\n

“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<\/a> is, therefore, dismissed,” the bench said in its short order passed on May 8.<\/p>\n

Though the order was passed in May, it was uploaded on the SC website Monday.<\/p>\n

The review petition is considered in the judges chambers through circulation of papers, without the counsel, as per Supreme Court rules.<\/p>\n

Jaiswal had said that there were “sufficient reasons\u201d which required review of the January 3 decision as there were “mistakes and errors apparent” on the face of it and also in light of certain new material that has been received by her.She contended that SEBI had in its report had only updated the top court about the status of the 24 investigations it undertook on the allegations, but did not disclose any findings or details of action taken. “It cannot be concluded that there has been no regulatory failure unless the findings of the SEBI investigations are publicly reported,” it said.The apex court in its January judgement had declined to order a CBI or SIT probe on the grounds that market regulator Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) was conducting a \u201ccomprehensive investigation\u201d that \u201cinspires confidence.\u201d It asked the regulator to complete investigation within three months. <\/p>\n

While disposing of a batch of PILs led by advocate Vishal Tiwari, the SC had then said that no apparent regulatory failure can be attributed to SEBI and there was prima facie no deliberate inaction or inadequacy in the investigation by it. It had also rejected a charge of conflict of interest with members of the court-appointed expert committee led by former judge Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea of Anamika Jaiswal, one of the petitioners in the Adani-Hindenburg case, who had sought review of the January 3 judgment that refused to order a Special Investigation Team or a CBI probe into US short-seller Hindenburg Research\u2019s allegations of fraud, misgovernance, and stock price manipulation by the Adani […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":95134,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/img.etimg.com\/photo\/msid-111763122,imgsize-88374.cms","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[602],"tags":[4362,80892,74949,80890,1287,5540,6229,80891,80896,80894,5851,227,16726,1628,80895,1617,80893,3116],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95133"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95133"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95133\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":95135,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95133\/revisions\/95135"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/95134"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}