Winning Bizness Desk

Mumbai. The Supreme Court has refused to take the names of experts in a sealed cover in the Adani-Hindenburg case. During the last hearing, the government had agreed to form an expert committee on the request of the court. At that time the government had offered to give the names of the experts in a sealed cover. The Supreme Court said that it wants transparency, therefore, the suggestion of the Center cannot be accepted in sealed cover. The court said – If the names you have given are not given to the other party, there will be lack of transparency. That's why we will form a committee from our side. It kept the order safe. The committee will see whether there is a need to change the regulatory mechanism of the stock market.

SC hearing 4 petitions in Adani-Hindenburg case

So far 4 PILs have been filed in this matter. Advocates ML Sharma, Vishal Tiwari, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and social worker Mukesh Kumar have filed these petitions. The first hearing in the case was conducted by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala on February 10. The second hearing took place on Monday 13 February. In the petition, Manohar Lal Sharma has sought directions to SEBI and the Union Home Ministry to investigate and file an FIR against Hindenburg Research founder Nathan Anderson and his associates in India. Vishal Tiwari demanded an inquiry into the Hindenburg report by forming a committee headed by a retired SC judge. In his petition, Tiwari explained the condition of people when share prices fall.

LIC & SBI's functioning questioned

Jaya Thakur has raised doubts over the role of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and State Bank of India (SBI) in this matter. He has demanded an inquiry into the role of LIC and SBI in investing huge amounts of public money in Adani Enterprises. Mukesh Kumar in his petition has sought directions from SEBI, ED, Income Tax Department, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to investigate. Mukesh Kumar has filed this petition through his lawyers Rupesh Singh Bhadauria and Mahesh Praveer Sahay.

Hindenburg report harmed investors

The petitions claim that Hindenburg short-sold the shares, causing "huge losses to investors". It has also been said that the report has tarnished the image of the country. It is affecting the economy. Simultaneously, the media hype over the report affected the markets and Hindenburg founder Nathan Anderson also failed to provide proof of his claims to the Indian regulator SEBI. On January 24, Hindenburg Research published a report regarding the Adani Group. In the report, allegations ranging from money laundering to share manipulation were made on the group. After the report, there was a huge fall in the shares of the group. On February 3, the share of Adani Enterprises had reached close to Rs 1000.

The court asked what is this short selling?

Advocate Sharma, who filed the petition, said- I am worried about short selling. CJI said to the advocate- You tell us what is short seller and short selling? Sharma said that first the shares are sold and then bought at throwaway prices. The court did not take Sharma's point seriously, then Prashant Bhushan explained the technicalities. Bhushan said- The promoters of the group had more than 75% shares in Adani Group companies. There is an appeal in our petition that the matter should be investigated by a special committee or SIT.