New Delhi : D.Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, has voiced reservations with the petitioners’ reliance on specific media reports in the Adani-Hindenburg case to make accusations against the Adani Group and India’s regulatory framework.
The court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) could not be expected to base its conclusions on what has been reported in the media.
The petitioners’ exploitation of data from publications from organizations like Hindenburg Research and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) also infuriated the Chief Justice.
D.Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, has voiced reservations with the petitioners’ reliance on specific media reports in the Adani-Hindenburg case to make accusations against the Adani Group and India’s regulatory framework.
The court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) could not be expected to base its conclusions on what has been reported in the media.
The petitioners’ exploitation of data from publications from organizations like Hindenburg Research and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) also infuriated the Chief Justice.
The Solicitor General claims that Prashant Bhushan is in charge of the NGO.
Mehta told the court during the hearing that the investigation had concluded in 22 of the 24 cases pertaining to the accusations made against the Adani Group.
“For the other two, we require additional information as well as data from foreign regulators, etc. They and we have been in consultation. There has been some information, but for obvious reasons, we do not have control over the time limit there,” he stated.
Recall that the Adani Group had referred to the report as just another coordinated attempt by Soros-funded interests, aided by certain foreign media outlets, to resurrect the bogus Hindenburg report, even as it rejected the accusations made by OCCRP.
The Adani Group had said, “These claims are based on closed cases from a decade ago when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) probed allegations of over invoicing, transfer of funds abroad, related party transactions and investments through FPIs.
“An independent adjudicating authority and an appellate tribunal had both confirmed that there was no overvaluation and that the transactions were in accordance with the applicable law. The matter attained finality in March 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled in our favour.
“Clearly, since there was no overvaluation, there is no relevance or foundation for these allegations on transfer of funds.”
