The Bombay High Court has granted an urgent hearing for SEBI and BSE’s challenge against an FIR involving allegations against ex-SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch and five other officials over regulatory violations and stock market violations, according to a CNBC TV-18 report.
What is the case about?
On Saturday, March 1, a special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court in Mumbai ordered the registration of an FIR against the former SEBI Chief, three current full-time directors, and two officials over alleged involvement in an irregularity in granting listing permission to Cals Refineries Ltd, reported PTI. The order was passed by Special ACB court judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar.
Apart from Buch, the officials named in the case are BSE Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Sundararaman Ramamurthy, then chairman and public interest director Pramod Agarwal and three whole-time members of SEBI – Ashwani Bhatia, Ananth Narayan G and Kamlesh Chandra Varshney.
Following this, the market regulator announced they would initiate legal action against the court order.
What did SEBI say?
“SEBI would be initiating appropriate legal steps to challenge this order and remains committed to ensuring due regulatory compliance in all matters,” the market regulator said in an official statement.
SEBI said that the special court allowed the application of the case without issuing any notice or giving SEBI a chance to present its stance on the facts for the record, according to the statement.
Additionally, as per the market regulator, the officials in question were not holding their respective positions at SEBI at the time of the case.
“Even though these officials were not holding their respective positions at the relevant point of time, the court allowed the application without issuing any notice or granting any opportunity to SEBI to place the facts on record,” said SEBI.
Meanwhile, SEBI claimed that the applicant who filed the case has no purpose and is frequently involved in a lawsuit or another, adding cost to certain cases.
“The applicant is known to be a frivolous and habitual litigant, with previous applications being dismissed by the Court, with imposition of costs in some cases,” it added.
