The Bench’s observation was made in the context of a series of petitions seeking a probe into the report that alleged the Adani Group was involved in fraudulent activities and artificially inflating its stock prices.
Source: Business Standard
The court told the petitioners that since it could not u2018make the assumption that the report was either credible or lacking in credibilityu2019, it could not u2018accept the Hindenburg report as ipso facto factually correctu2019.
SC’s opinion is in line with the principles of fairness and justice, even though SEBI is coming up with a decision. Because while the court has no means of verifying the authenticity of the Hindenburg report, it can slap SEBI if the regulator is found to have failed to exercise its powers and jurisdiction.
Source: Business Today
Accordingly, the Control Commission’s refusal to consider the Hindenburg Report as evidence is correct. The demand of the petitioners for an inquiry into the investments made by SBI and LIC in the shares of Adani was also rightly rejected.
However, when it comes to protecting the interests of investors, the court did not shy away from grilling SEBI. The statutory body was questioned regarding its regulatory measures to combat market volatility caused by short-selling, which allows a few sellers to make quick gains.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
