New Delhi: A fresh plea has been filed in the Supreme Court following the recent Hindenburg issue as the petitioner complained of the Supreme Court Registrar’s alleged refusal to register the petition and urged the top court to direct the registry to register his miscellaneous application seeking compliance with the earlier top court’s order.
The fresh plea 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.
Advocate Vishal Tiwari has moved the fresh plea urging to allow his appeal against the lodgement order dated August 5, 2024, of the Registrar and to direct the registry to register the miscellaneous application.
“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 Application 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 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 period is laid down for the completion of the pending investigations,” Advocate Tiwari said.
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.
According to the fresh plea, citing whistleblower 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.
“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.
“According to Hindenburg, a declaration of funds signed by a principal at IIFL stated that the source of the investment was “salary,” and the couple’s net worth was estimated at USD 10 million. Hindenburg further alleged that on 22 March 2017, just weeks before the appointment of SEBI Chairperson, her Husband wrote to Mauritius fund administrator Trident Trust, requesting to be the sole person authorised to operate the accounts,” the plea stated.
The plea further read that the email, allegedly obtained from a whistleblower, appeared to indicate an attempt to move the assets out of his wife’s name ahead of her politically sensitive appointment.
“A later account statement dated 26 February 2018, addressed to Madhabi Buch’s private email, reportedly revealed the full details of the structure, including GDOF Cell 90 (IPEplus Fund 1) — the same Mauritius-registered cell allegedly used by Vinod Adani,” the plea read.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Sameer Khan | 
