The markets regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on July 10 submitted a 41-page affidavit in the Supreme Court and placed on record the recommendations by an expert committee and petitioners in the Adani-Hindenburg case.

Share Market Live

NSE

Sebi opposed the top court-appointed panel’s call to prescribe timelines for investigations. It expressed disagreement with the panel's call for a fresh “robust” settlement scheme and said the scheme was already in place since 2018 and rejected the claim that it has “crashed.”

The development comes as India's apex court had appointed an expert panel along with markets regulator Sebi to investigate the drop in Adani Group shares, triggered by Hindenburg Research's fraud allegations. Hindenburg Research on January 24 accused Adani of "brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud" as well as using "labyrinthian network" of shell companies for surreptitious money movements.

The allegations were strongly denied by the conglomerate, calling the report "a calculated attack on India". The report lopped off close to $150 billion in market value of the group's list companies at the lowest point and led to Adani losing the richest Indian tag.

In the affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court on Monday, July 10, Sebi noted that the expert committee had recommended following Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) order, which is why the market regulator will wait for the top court’s decision if SAT reverses Sebi’s decision.

Sebi also added that if immediate action is not taken, “irreparable harm” could be caused to investors which can’t be reversed by a higher court. The affidavit also shows that the top court appointed panel has proposed a robust settlement facility and claims that the settlement process has crashed, which Sebi disagrees with and said the system is already in place since 2018. Sebi responded that in the financial year 2021-22, it settled 55 percent of 345 “non-ISO” cases filed for settlement.

The panel has also recommended timelines for starting, completing investigations and settlements to which the markets regulator responded that prescribing timelines for initiation of probe is not appropriate as “reasonable time” for probe will vary as per individual cases.

It is not appropriate to have timelines for settlement and enforcement, Sebi said, adding that manipulations in the securities market are not evident immediately and investigations often begin on a complaint filed many years after the incident.