Cong Leader Moves SC Seeking Investigation Against Adani, Claiming “Swindled Lakhs Of Crores Of Public Money”
New Delhi, Feb 14 : A Congress leader filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking for an investigation into the Adani Group of Companies in light of the Hindenburg Report. The petition also asked for an investigation into the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and the SBI’s possible involvement in the alleged massive public investments in the FPO of the businesses. In a petition submitted by Jaya Thakur through the attorney Varinder Kumar Sharma, Jaya requested that the Supreme Court order the CBI, ED, DRI, CBDT, EIB, NCB, SEBI, RBI, and SFIO to conduct investigations into the Adani Group of Companies and its chairman and associates, who are accused of swindling the public and the government of huge amounts of money.
The plea asked the court to order the investigating agencies to look into how Respondent Nos. 11 (LIC) and 12 (SBI) were able to invest a significant amount of public money in the Adani Enterprises FPO at a price of Rs. 3200 per share when the going price for Adani Enterprises shares on the secondary market was about Rs. 1800 per share.
The argument in the lawsuit was that as a result of the disclosure made by the Hindenburg Research report on January 24, the share price of the Adani Group of Companies fell sharply and nearly halved its price on various stock exchanges in India and abroad, costing millions of ordinary citizens more than Rs 10 lakh crore.
The Hindenburg report controversy is the subject of two petitions that the Supreme Court is now hearing.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Securities exchange board of india) and other agencies are fully prepared to handle the situation that resulted from the Hindenburg report on the Adani group, the Central government informed the Supreme Court on Monday. The government also stated that it would not object to the court’s suggestion that a committee be formed to strengthen the current regime.
It emphasised that the court might grant it permission to suggest the mandate of the committee as well as potential committee names.
Before a bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the Centre, stated: “Our instructions are that the existing structure — Sebi and other agencies — are fully equipped not only regime-wise but otherwise as well, in handling the situation.”
However, the administration has no issues forming a committee in response to ideas that came from your lordships.
Mehta emphasised that the committee’s mandate should be extremely relevant because any unintentional message sent to domestic and international investors that even a regulator or statutory monitoring authority needs to be monitored by a committee appointed by the Supreme Court may have some negative effects on the flow of money.