SC dismisses application in Hindenburg-Adani group matter

New Delhi [India], January 27 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an application filed by a lawyer, challenging the apex court's Registrar order of August 5, 2024, which had declined to register his previous application related to the Hindenburg-Adani Group matter.
A bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala rejected the application filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari.
The application rejected by the Registrar of the apex court was to direct the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to submit its conclusive investigation report on the allegations made by the Hindenburg against the Adani Group.
The Registrar had declined to accept his miscellaneous application saying that the application did not disclose any reasonable cause.
Filing the application before the top court, the petitioner asked it to direct the Registry to register his miscellaneous application.
The application stated that due to the recent Hindenburg controversy, it becomes incumbent for SEBI to conclude the pending investigations and declare the conclusion of the investigations.
"Allow the appeal of the petitioner against the lodgement order dated August 5, 2024, of the Registrar (Judicial listing) Supreme Court of India and direct the Registry to register the miscellaneous application and list before the Supreme Court for appropriate orders," the petitioner urged.
The petition also stated that the Registrar of the top court has refused to register miscellaneous applications under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 On the grounds of no reasonable cause for registration. The petitioner said that this has suspended the fundamental right of the petitioner and has closed the door of the court for the petitioner forever.
The petitioner said that the conclusion drawn by the Registrar is contrary to the direction given by the court in an order dated January 3. 2024.
"The top court has clearly fixed the timeline of three months for the completion of investigations by the SEBI. By using the word "preferably" it cannot be understood that no timeline was fixed. When specifically three months have been mentioned in the order, it is sufficient to be understood as prudent that a fixed time period is laid down for the completion of the pending investigations," said the advocate.
The plea also stated that despite the SEBI chief having denied the allegation as baseless and the top court also held that third-party reports cannot be considered this all has created an atmosphere of doubt in the minds of the public and investors.
The applicant said that in such circumstances, it becomes incumbent for SEBI to conclude the pending investigations and declare the conclusion of the investigations.
"In a blog post, Hindenburg claimed that 18 months after its initial report on Adani, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has shown a "surprising lack of interest" in investigating Adani's alleged web of undisclosed Mauritius and offshore shell entities. Citing whistleblower documents, Hindenburg alleged that SEBI Chairperson and her husband were involved in the same offshore Bermuda and Mauritius funds allegedly controlled by Vinod Adani, the elder brother of Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani," the plea read.
"These funds are believed to have been used for round-tripping funds and inflating stock prices," the plea read. (ANI)