New Delhi, In a significant win for the <keyword id="19955648" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="adani-group" source="keywords">Adani Group</keyword>, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to transfer the probe into allegations of stock price manipulation by the Indian corporate giant to a special investigation team or the CBI, saying market regulator SEBI was conducting a "comprehensive investigation" and its conduct "inspires confidence". Holding that the power of the court to enter the regulatory domain of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in framing delegated legislation was limited, the apex court directed the market regulator to complete the two pending investigations expeditiously, preferably within three months. The term delegated legislation or secondary legislation refers to laws made by individuals or bodies authorised by the legislature to create detailed regulations under a specific Act of Parliament. A bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="19936357" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="keywords">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> said reliance placed by the petitioners on newspaper articles or reports by third-party organisations like Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to question a comprehensive investigation by a specialised regulator does not inspire confidence. The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that SEBI has completed 22 out of the 24 investigations into allegations levelled against the Adani Group. Reacting to the verdict, billionaire entrepreneur <keyword id="19929098" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="gautam-adani" source="keywords">Gautam Adani</keyword> said truth has prevailed and his group will continue to contribute to India's growth story. "The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement shows that: Truth has prevailed. Satyameva Jayate," Adani said in a post on X. "I am grateful to those who stood by us," he added. In its 46-page judgement, the bench said, "The facts of this case do not warrant a transfer of investigation from SEBI. In an appropriate case, this court does have the power to transfer an investigation being carried out by the authorized agency to an SIT or CBI." "Such a power is exercised in extraordinary circumstances when the competent authority portrays a glaring, wilful and deliberate inaction in carrying out the investigation. The threshold for the transfer of investigation has not been demonstrated to exist," the verdict penned by the CJI said. The apex court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions on the Adani-Hindenburg Research row over allegations of stock price manipulation by the Indian business conglomerate. The Supreme Court said the SEBI's status report and the details of the 24 investigations do not indicate inaction by the market regulator. "In fact, to the contrary, the course of conduct by SEBI inspires confidence that SEBI is conducting a comprehensive investigation," the bench said. It said the allegations of conflict of interest levelled against some members of the court-appointed expert committee are "unsubstantiated and are rejected". "SEBI and the investigative agencies of the Union government shall probe into whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of Hindenburg Research and any other entities in taking short positions involved any infraction of the law and if so, suitable action shall be taken," the bench said. It said the court must refrain from substituting its own wisdom for the regulatory policies of SEBI and the scope of judicial review, when examining a policy framed by a specialised regulator, is to scrutinise whether it violates fundamental rights, any provision of the Constitution, any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary. "No valid grounds have been raised for this court to direct SEBI to revoke its amendments to the FPI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) regulations and the LODR (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) regulations which were made in exercise of its delegated legislative power," it said. "The procedure followed in arriving at the current shape of the regulations does not suffer from irregularity or illegality. The FPI regulations and LODR regulations have been tightened by the amendments in question," the bench said. It said the court has not interfered with the outcome of the investigations by SEBI and the regulator should take its probe to their logical conclusion in accordance with law. "The reliance placed by the petitioner on the OCCPR report to suggest that SEBI was lackadaisical in conducting the investigation is rejected. A report by a third-party organization without any attempt to verify the authenticity of its allegations cannot be regarded as conclusive proof," the court said. The bench noted that the petitioners had also relied on a January 31, 2014 letter sent by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to then SEBI chairperson which purportedly alerted the market regulator about potential stock market manipulation by the Adani group through over-valuation of the import of power equipment from a UAE-based subsidiary. "Further, the petitioner's reliance on the letter by the DRI is misconceived as the issue has already been settled by concurrent findings of DRI's Additional Director General, the CESTAT and this court," it said. The bench said the Centre and the SEBI shall constructively consider the suggestions of the expert committee in its report and take any further actions as are necessary to strengthen the regulatory framework, protect investors and ensure the orderly functioning of the securities market. It said the public interest jurisprudence under Article 32 of the Constitution was expanded by the apex court to secure access to justice and provide ordinary citizens with the opportunity to highlight legitimate causes before the top court. "However, petitions that lack adequate research and rely on unverified and unrelated material tend to, in fact, be counterproductive. This word of caution must be kept in mind by lawyers and members of civil society alike," it said. The judgment was delivered on PILs filed by lawyers Vishal Tiwari, M L Sharma, Congress leader Jaya Thakur, and Anamika Jaiswal. The Adani Group stocks suffered a bloodbath on the bourses after Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including those about fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate. The Adani Group dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.

SC declines SIT, CBI probe into allegations against Adani group

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday asked former apex court judge <keyword id="3425191" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="justice-l-nageswara-rao" source="Orion">Justice L Nageswara Rao</keyword> to prepare a report by July 31 on finalisation of the constitution of the All India Football Federation (<keyword id="50985" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aiff" source="Orion">AIFF</keyword>) after taking note of objections to the draft document by various stakeholders. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala said the voluminous objections to the draft constitution by various stakeholders can be taken care of by Justice <keyword id="6619" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rao" source="Orion">Rao</keyword> after hearing parties concerned. "We are of the view that it will be appropriate to defer this exercise (of finalising the constitution) since these are not issues of law but matters of policy dealing with running sport of football in India. Bearing in mind that the case of Indian Olympic Association was handled by Justice L N Rao, we entrust Justice Rao with the task of formulating the AIFF constitution. We request him to take the draft constitution prepared and finalise a report. In finalising the report Justice Rao is requested to hear all stakeholders," the court said. It said the exercise of considering the draft constitution and preparing a comprehensive report be completed by July 31. Earlier, the top court on April 5 had said that it will hear on May 2 a batch of pleas on issues related to the AIFF, including objections raised to certain aspects of its draft constitution. The stakeholders include the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and sports bodies in the country. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/april-auto-sales-maruti-suzuki-flags-decline-in-bookings-in-april-electric-two-wheelers-lose-momentum-due-to-fame-ii-irregularities/articleshow/99927888.cms">April Auto Sales: Maruti Suzuki flags decline in bookings in April, electric two-wheelers lose momentum due to FAME-II irregularities</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/maruti-suzuki-tvs-motor-eicher-motors-stock-rise-but-tata-motors-hero-motorcorp-down/articleshow/99927773.cms">Tata Motors, Hero MotoCorp stocks slip after April sales disappoint; Maruti Suzuki, TVS Motor, Eicher Motors rise</a>

SC entrusts ex-judge Rao with task of preparing report on finalisation of constitution of AIFF

New Delhi, May 17 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to submit an updated status report on August 14 on its probe into the Adani-Hindenburg controversy. The apex court also directed that the copies of the report submitted by the Justice Sapre panel will be given to the parties in the meantime to enable them assist in further deliberations. A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing SEBI, that the court could have given time till end of September but on August 14, "tell us, what stage you are on, give us an updated report". Mehta contended that six-month extension for the SEBI to complete its report was already compressed. The bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, told Mehta: "Tell us what you have done and the court had initially granted two months and now extended it till August which makes it five months." The top court stressed that it cannot give an indefinite extension for completing the probe. <keyword id="427826" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="advocate-prashant-bhushan" source="Orion">Advocate Prashant Bhushan</keyword> submitted that in recent years and despite many complaints, the SEBI did not do anything. The market regulator told the Supreme Court that the allegations it has been investigating the Adani Group since 2016 are "factually baseless". SEBI also cautioned that "any incorrect or premature conclusion of the case arrived at without full facts material on record would not serve the ends of justice and hence would be legally untenable". "The application for extension of time filed by SEBI is meant to ensure carriage of justice keeping in mind the interest of investors and the securities market since any incorrect or premature conclusion of the case arrived at without full facts material on record would not serve the ends of justice and hence would be legally untenable. "In the context of investigation into Minimum Public Shareholding (MPS) norms, SEBI has already approached eleven overseas Regulators under the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MMOU) with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Various requests for information were made to these Regulators. The first request to overseas Regulators was made as early as on October 6, 2020," SEBI added. On May 12, the Supreme Court had indicated that it may grant three months more to SEBI to complete its probe into the controversy surrounding the Hindenburg Research report on the Adani Group.

Can't give indefinite extension, submit report on Adani-Hindenburg probe by Aug 14: SC to SEBI

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday dismissed a <keyword id="6355791" type="General" weightage="70" keywordseo="pil" source="Orion">PIL</keyword> seeking framing of norms for <keyword id="15311949" type="TOPIC" weightage="60" keywordseo="Registration" source="TOPIC" sourcekeytype="investopedia" meta.keywordsubtype="null" meta.seopath="r/registration" meta.entityname="Registration" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="registration">registration</keyword> of every live-in relationship with the Centre and termed it a "hare-brained" idea. A bench, headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="445662" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="Orion">D Y Chandrachud</keyword>, asked the counsel for the petitioner, lawyer Mamta Rani if she wanted to foster the <keyword id="15308388" type="TOPIC" weightage="60" keywordseo="Security" source="TOPIC" sourcekeytype="finance,investopedia" meta.keywordsubtype="null" meta.msid="92650302" meta.seopath="s/security" meta.entityname="Security" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="security">security</keyword> of these people or wanted them not to get into <keyword id="13201450" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Live-in-relationships" source="Orion">live-in relationships</keyword>. The counsel replied that the petitioner wanted the relationship to be registered to enhance their social security. "What does the Centre has to do with registration of live-in relationships? What kind of hare-brained idea is this? It is high time this court start imposing cost on petitioners who file these kinds of PILs. Dismissed," the bench also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said. The PIL was filed by Rani seeking a direction to the Centre to frame rules for registration of live-in relationships as it cited an increase in crimes like rape and murder allegedly committed by live-in partners. The plea, which referred to the recent killing of <keyword id="15515837" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="shraddha-walkar" source="Orion">Shraddha Walkar</keyword> allegedly by her live-in partner Aaftab Amin Poonawala, also sought framing of rules and guidelines for registration of such relationships. The PIL said registration of live-in relationships would lead to accurate information being available to both the live-in partners about each other and also to the government about each of them regarding their marital status, criminal history and other relevant details. Besides the increase in crimes like rape and murder, the plea said there has been a "huge increase in false rape cases filed by women wherein they claim to be living in live-in relationships with the accused, and it is always difficult for the courts to find out from the evidence whether the <keyword id="11837718" type="DOMAIN" weightage="20" keywordseo="fact" botkeyword="" source="ET" sourcekeytype="COMPANY" meta.keywordsubtype="EQ" meta.aliasname="fact" meta.entityname="The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd." meta.entityid="11995" meta.seoname="the-fertilisers-and-chemicals-travancore-ltd">fact</keyword> of living in live-in relationships is proved by the backing of evidence". SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/erratic-rains-thunderstorms-more-in-march-impacts-lives-and-livelihoods/slidelist/98807776.cms">Erratic rains, thunderstorms &amp; more in March impacts lives and livelihoods</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/how-to-file-a-consumer-complaint-against-a-company-using-whatsapp/articleshow/98806634.cms">How to file a consumer complaint against a company using WhatsApp</a>

'Hare-brained idea': SC rejects PIL for registration of live-in relationships with Centre

New Delhi, The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> has agreed to hear on Friday a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to constitute a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to inquire and investigate into the Hindenburg Research report which has made a slew of allegations against the business conglomerate led by industrialist <keyword id="111343" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="gautam-adani" source="Orion">Gautam Adani</keyword>. Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who has filed the petition, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y <keyword id="364737" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="chandrachud" source="Orion">Chandrachud</keyword> on Thursday. Tiwari told the bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, that a separate plea filed on the issue is scheduled to be listed for hearing on February 10. He urged the bench that his plea be also heard on Friday along with the separate plea. In his public interest litigation (<keyword id="6355791" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="pil" source="Orion">PIL</keyword>), Tiwari has also sought directions to set up a special committee to oversee the sanction policy for loans of over Rs 500 crore given to big corporates. Last week, another PIL was filed in the apex court by advocate M L Sharma seeking prosecution of short seller Nathan Anderson of US-based firm Hindenburg Research and his associates in India and the US for allegedly exploiting innocent investors and the "artificial crashing" of <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword>'s stock value in the market. The <keyword id="76451" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="adani" source="Orion">Adani</keyword> Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate. The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/adani-group-stocks-snap-2-day-rally-tank-in-morning-trade/articleshow/97758799.cms">Adani Group stocks snap 2-day rally, tank in morning trade</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/adani-group-market-cap-rises-on-wednesday-led-by-adani-enterprises/articleshow/97726879.cms">Adani group market cap jumps ₹42,000 crore on Wednesday in Adani Enterprises-led rally</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/not-just-lic-32-mutual-fund-houses-have-exposure-to-adani-group-stocks/articleshow/97698847.cms">Not just LIC, 32 mutual fund houses have exposure to Adani Group stocks</a>

SC to hear plea seeking probe into Hindenburg Research report on Adani group companies

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday referred a batch of petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage to a <keyword id="6363843" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="constitution" source="Orion">constitution</keyword> bench, comprising five judges. The Centre, in an affidavit, contended that legal validation of same-sex marriage will cause "complete havoc" with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country and accepted societal values. Solicitor General <keyword id="243257" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="tushar-mehta" source="Orion">Tushar Mehta</keyword>, representing the Centre, stressed that legislative policy recognises marriage as a bond only between a biological man and a biological woman. The Centre contended that it is for <keyword id="6354721" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="parliament" source="Orion">Parliament</keyword> to decide whether same-sex marriage could be statutorily recognised. A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, justice P.S. Narasimha, and justice J.B. Pardiwala said it will invoke Article 145 (3) of the Constitution and have this matter decided by a constitution bench, comprising five judges. "It is a very seminal issue", said the bench, while fixing the matter for hearing on April 18. The central government has told the Supreme Court that living together as partners and having a sexual relationships by same-sex individuals, which is decriminalised now, is not comparable with the Indian family unit - a husband, a wife, and children born out of the union - while opposing pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriage. It stressed that same-sex marriage is not in conformity with societal morality and Indian ethos. In an affidavit, the central government said the notion of marriage itself necessarily and inevitably presupposes a union between two persons of the opposite sex. This definition is socially, culturally, and legally ingrained into the very idea and concept of marriage and ought not to be disturbed or diluted by judicial interpretation, it added. The affidavit said the institution of marriage and the family are important social institutions in India that provide for the security, support and companionship of members of society and bear an important role in the rearing of children and their mental and psychological upbringing also. The Centre's response came on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act and other marriage laws as unconstitutional on the ground that they deny same-sex couples the right to marry or alternatively to read these provisions broadly so as to include same-sex marriage. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/mahindra-group-sells-over-6-stake-in-mahindra-cie-automotive/articleshow/98608891.cms">Mahindra group sells over 6% stake in Mahindra CIE Automotive</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/billionaire-hedge-fund-manager-investor-bill-ackman-warns-more-banks-will-collapse/articleshow/98608905.cms">Billionaire hedge fund manager investor Bill Ackman warns more banks will collapse</a>

'Very seminal issue', SC refers pleas for same-sex marriage to a constitutional bench

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday issued notice to Axis Trustee Services Ltd on a clutch of appeals filed by the <keyword id="30067" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="rbi" source="Orion">RBI</keyword> and others against the <keyword id="48485" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="bombay-high-court" source="Orion">Bombay High Court</keyword> order, which quashed a decision of the <keyword id="45660" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="yes-bank" source="Orion">Yes Bank</keyword> administrator to write off Additional Tier 1 (AT-1) bonds. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the RBI, and senior advocate <keyword id="30182" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="kapil-sibal" source="Orion">Kapil Sibal</keyword>, representing Yes Bank, made submissions before a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. After hearing their submissions, the bench, also comprising P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, extended a stay on the high court order quashing the decision of writing off AT-1 bonds. The bench said: "Issue notice. The stay granted (by the Bombay High Court on its decision) will continue." The apex court was hearing the appeal by Yes Bank, RBI, and others against a Bombay High Court ruling, which set aside an administrator's decision to write off Rs 84.5 billion of AT-1 bonds in March 2020 after the RBI initiated a restructuring of the lender. The high court, while quashing the decision of the Yes Bank Administrator, had, however, said its decision will be in abeyance so the RBI and Yes Bank may appeal against it in the Supreme Court. AT-1 bonds have no maturity date. These debt instruments offer higher returns but also carry greater risk. The bench asked the parties to file a list of dates and a common compilation of records and case laws for expeditious disposal of the matter. The top court scheduled the matter for further hearing after Holi break in March. In January, the high court had quashed the decision of the Yes Bank on March 14, 2020 to write off the bonds. The high court noted that the administrator did not have the authority to take such a decision. Yes Bank had written off AT-1 bonds worth Rs 8,415 crore as part of the bailout in March 2020. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/startup-fundraising-hits-an-8-month-low-in-february-falls-over-83-yoy/articleshow/98390347.cms">Startup fundraising hits an 8-month low in February, falls over 83% YoY</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/tractors-commercial-vehicles-drive-auto-sales-in-february-but-el-nio-threat-looms-large/articleshow/98386451.cms">Tractors &amp; commercial vehicles drive auto sales in February but El Niño threat looms large</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/adani-group-stocks-rally-after-it-sells-stake-to-gqg-partners/articleshow/98384846.cms">Adani group’s marketcap rises by over ₹2 lakh crore in four days</a>

SC extends stay on order quashing write-off of Yes Bank's AT1 bonds

New Delhi [India], May 15 (ANI): The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday adjourned hearing on the <keyword id="6355630" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="securities-and-exchange-board-of-india" source="Orion">Securities and Exchange Board of India</keyword>'s (SEBI) plea seeking a six-month extension to conclude the investigation in the <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="hindenburg-research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword>'s report. The bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chadrachud and also comprising Justices P S Narsimha and J B Pardiwala adjourned the matter. Solicitor General <keyword id="243257" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="tushar-mehta" source="Orion">Tushar Mehta</keyword> informed the SC that SEBI is seeking an extension of time for conducting the probe and needs six months to reach any conclusion. SEBI told the SC that the investigation done earlier by SEBI pertains to the issuance of Global Depository Receipts ("GDRs") by 51 Indian listed companies, in respect of which investigation was conducted. SEBI submitted before the Supreme Court that no listed company of AdGroup was part of those 51 companies it was investigating. "Pursuant to the completion of the investigation, appropriate enforcement actions were taken in this matter. Hence, the allegation that the Securities and Exchange Board of India is investigating Adani since 2016 is factually baseless. I, therefore, say and submit that reliance sought to be placed on the investigation pertaining to GDRs is wholly misplaced," the rejoinder affidavit read. SEBI submitted before Supreme Court that in the context of an investigation into Minimum Public Shareholding (MPS) norms, SEBI has already approached eleven overseas Regulators under the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Various requests for information were made to these Regulators. The first request to overseas Regulators was made as early as on October 6, 2020, the SEBI apprised the court. SEBI submitted before the Supreme Court that the application for extension of time filed by it is meant to ensure carriage of justice keeping in mind the interest of investors and the securities market since any incorrect or premature conclusion of the case arrived at without full facts material on record would not serve the ends of justice and hence would be legally untenable. SEBI has informed Supreme Court that in respect of the investigation and examination relating to 12 transactions referred to in the Hindenburg Report, prima facie it is noted that these transactions are highly complex and have many sub-transactions across numerous jurisdictions and a rigorous investigation of these transactions would require collation of data/information from various sources including bank statements from multiple domestic as well as international banks, financial statements of onshore and offshore entities involved in the transactions and contracts and agreements, if any, entered between the entities along with other supporting documents. On March 2, the apex court directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any securities law violations by the <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword> in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD 140 billion of the Adani Group's market value. Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group companies. The committee consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre. The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months. The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including on the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors' interests. The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate. The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as "an unethical short seller", stating that the report by the New York-based entity was "nothing but a lie". A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares. (ANI)

Adani-Hindenburg row: Supreme Court adjourns hearing

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> will hear on May 12 the pleas on the <keyword id="76451" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adani" source="Orion">Adani</keyword>-<keyword id="191733" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Hindenburg" source="Orion">Hindenburg</keyword> row in which it had on March 2 asked market regulator SEBI to probe within two months allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani group and lapses in regulatory disclosure. The top court had also set up a panel to look at providing protection to Indian investors after a damning report by US short seller Hindenburg wiped out more than USD 140 billion of the Indian conglomerate's market value. As per the cause list uploaded on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala is scheduled to hear the pleas. The hearing assumes significance in the wake of media reports that the six-member committee, headed by former apex court judge Justice A M Sapre, constituted for assessing the existing regulatory framework and making recommendations to strengthen the process, has submitted its report to the top court in a sealed cover. Recently, market Regulator SEBI moved the apex court seeking a six-month extension to complete its probe into allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani group and lapses in regulatory disclosure. In an application moved before the court, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has submitted it needs six more months for ascertaining possible violations related to "misrepresentation of financials, circumvention of regulations and/or fraudulent nature of transactions". "Pass an order extending the time to conclude the investigation as directed by this Court by the common order dated March 2 by a period of 6 months or such other period as this court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case," the SEBI plea said. One of the PIL petitioners, advocate Vishal Tiwari, has opposed the SEBI's plea, saying the market regulator has already got sufficient time to inspect, examine, collect and seize relevant documents. The apex court, while defending the setting up of the committee, had said it was appropriate to have a panel of experts in order to protect Indian investors against the volatility of the kind which has been witnessed in the recent past. The court-appointed Justice Sapre panel is to be provided assistance by the Centre and other statutory agencies including the SEBI chairperson. On February 10, the top court had said the interest of Indian investors needs to be protected against market volatility in the backdrop of the rout of the Adani Group stocks and asked the Centre to consider setting up a panel of domain experts headed by a former judge to look at strengthening the regulatory mechanism. The Centre had agreed to the apex court's proposal. Till now, four PILs have been filed in the top court on the issue including by lawyers M L Sharma and Vishal Tiwari and Congress leader Jaya Thakur. Adani Group stocks had taken a beating on the bourses after Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including those about fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate. The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/investment/news/investment-supertrends-2023-ai-to-digitalisation-and-green-energy/articleshow/100126382.cms">AI to digitalisation and green energy: Supertrends defining investment for today and the future</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/paytm-brokerages-looking-up-to-59-growth-in-one97-communications/articleshow/100070477.cms">Paytm shares surge 5% on sustained Q4 growth, brokerages see up to 59% upside</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/britannias-q4-net-profit-rises-47-yoy-to-559-crore-on-softer-input-costs/articleshow/100017366.cms">Britannia’s Q4 net profit rises 47% YoY to ₹559 crore on softer input costs</a>

Supreme Court to hear pleas on Adani-Hindenburg row on May 12

The Supreme Court Friday said there should be a robust mechanism to ensure that the interests of Indian investors are protected in the stock market and sought views of the Centre and market regulator SEBI on PILs alleging exploitation of innocent investors and "artificial crashing" of the <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword>'s stock value. A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud sought inputs from the Finance Ministry and others on various issues, including making the regulatory mechanism robust to protect the interests of investors in the market where capital flow is seamless in modern times. The bench, also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, suggested forming a committee of domain experts and others, besides putting in place "robust practices to protect investors". The Solicitor General, appearing for the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), said the market regulator and other statutory bodies were doing the needful. The court said it was "just thinking aloud" and not making any observation on the merits of the case as "the stock markets usually run on sentiments". It then listed the two PILs, seeking various reliefs including a probe into the <keyword id="191733" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="hindenburg" source="Orion">Hindenburg</keyword> report, for hearing on February 13. One of the PILs, filed by lawyer <keyword id="1126422" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="vishal-tiwari" source="Orion">Vishal Tiwari</keyword>, has sought a direction from the Centre to constitute a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to inquire and investigate the <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="hindenburg-research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword> report which has made a slew of allegations against the business conglomerate led by industrialist Gautam Adani. Another PIL, filed by advocate M L Sharma, seeks prosecution of short-seller <keyword id="16259830" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="nathan-anderson" source="Orion">Nathan Anderson</keyword> of the US-based Hindenburg Research and his associates in India and the US for allegedly exploiting innocent investors and the "artificial crashing" of the Adani Group's stock value in the market. Sharma has sought directions for declaring short selling an offence of fraud against the investors, to be prosecutable under section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with provisions of the SEBI Act. Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate. The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/10-unusual-date-ideas-to-spice-up-your-valentines-day/slidelist/97800003.cms">10 unusual date ideas to spice up your Valentine’s Day</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/shark-tank-india-s2-an-entrepreneur-who-battled-anxiety-develops-app-to-gamify-mental-health/articleshow/97798940.cms">An entrepreneur who battled anxiety develops app to gamify mental health</a>

SC seeks views of Centre, SEBI on Hindenburg report on Adani group companies

<keyword id="6355629" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="google" source="Orion">Google</keyword> on Friday said that they are reviewing the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword>'s decision, after the apex court declined to entertain a plea by the tech giant challenging a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (<keyword id="6396355" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nclat" source="Orion">NCLAT</keyword>) order, which refused to stay operation of the Competition Commission of India (<keyword id="47183" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="cci" source="Orion">CCI</keyword>) order imposing Rs 1337.76 crore fine on the tech giant. A company spokesperson said in a statement that the decision "is limited to interim relief and did not decide the merits of our appeal". "Android has greatly benefited Indian users, developers, and OEMs and played a key role in India's digital transformation. We remain committed to our users and partners and will cooperate with the CCI on the way forward, in parallel with our appeal," a Google spokesperson said. A bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala said the findings by the CCI cannot be said to be "without jurisdiction or with manifest error" and affirmed the NCLAT order. declining to grant interim relief to Google. The bench directed the NCLAT to dispose of Google's appeal by March 31, and granted Google seven days to deposit 10 per cent of the penalty imposed by the CCI. On January 11, the Supreme Court agreed to examine an appeal by Google against a decision by NCLAT, declining to stay a Rs 1,337.76 crore penalty imposed on it by the CCI for alleged anti-competitive practices. Google moved the apex court after the setback at the NCLAT, which did not stay the CCI order on abuse of dominant position in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystem case. Earlier this month, the NCLAT did not find any urgency to pass an interim order, after noting that Google filed the appeal in December last year, though the CCI passed the order in October. It directed Google to deposit 10 per cent of the fine amount. The CCI also imposed a penalty of Rs 936.44 crore on Google in a separate case for abusing its dominant position with respect to its <keyword id="1470391" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="play-store" source="Orion">Play Store</keyword> policies. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/hul-q3-net-profit-rises-12-yoy-to-2505-crore-rural-slowdown-bottoming-out/articleshow/97138811.cms">HUL Q3 net profit rises 12% YoY to ₹2,505 crore – rural slowdown ‘bottoming out’, says company</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/adani-enterprises-fpo-20000-crore-green-hydrogen-ambitions-and-debt-repayment/articleshow/97123733.cms">Adani Enterprises’ ₹20,000 crore FPO opens on January 27, will fuel its green hydrogen ambitions, repay debt</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/ril-q3-to-be-a-mixed-bag-muted-growth-in-o2c-robust-retail-and-jio-performance/articleshow/97094061.cms">RIL’s Q3 to be a mixed bag: Muted growth seen in O2C, robust performance projected for retail and Jio</a>

SC ruling limited to interim relief, didn't decide merits of our appeal: Google

The Central government on Monday informed the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> that the existing structure, which includes the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and others agencies, are fully equipped to handle the situation which occurred after Hindenburg report on <keyword id="76451" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="adani" source="Orion">Adani</keyword> group, and it would not oppose the court's suggestion to constitute a committee to strengthen the existing regime. It stressed that the court could permit it to suggest the remit of that committee with possible suggestions of names of the committee. Solicitor General <keyword id="243257" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="tushar-mehta" source="Orion">Tushar Mehta</keyword>, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that: "Our instructions are that existing structure - Sebi and other agencies - are fully equipped not only regime wise but otherwise also, in taking care of the situation. "However, responding to suggestion which fell from your lordshipsathe government has no objection in constituting a committee." <keyword id="6371425" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="mehta" source="Orion">Mehta</keyword> stressed that the remit of the committee should be very relevant because any unintentional message to the international investors and domestic investors that even a regulator or statutory monitoring authority also needs a monitoring by a committee appointed by the Supreme Court may have some adverse impact on the flow of money. He sought that the court could permit the government to suggest the remit of that committee with possible suggestions of names of the committee in a sealed cover, as it may not be appropriate to discuss in open court hearing. "We suggest some names, which appeal to your lordships, may not appeal... but would be the people of some calibre or some standing in their respective fields, but the remit will be very relevant," he said. The bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, asked the SG to come back with the proposed remit of the committee by Friday and put it down on a note for the bench to examine, so that it could either modify or reflect on it, and then it can pronounce an order. Advocate Vishal <keyword id="6364858" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="tiwari" source="Orion">Tiwari</keyword>, one of the petitioners, argued that although organisational structure is there, yet this problem has arisen, there may be some loopholes which could be examined by the expert committee. The bench said it will continue hearing the matter on Friday. On February 10, the Supreme Court had observed that there is a need for a robust regulatory framework to protect the interest of the investors and if Centre agrees, a committee may be set up to suggest regulatory improvements. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to set up a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to investigate the Hindenburg Research report, which resulted in crashing of Adani group company share prices and caused massive loss to investors. Two separate petitions have been filed by advocates Tiwari and M.L. Sharma in connection with the Hindenburg report on Adani group. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/ev-startup-magenta-mobility-raises-40-million-in-equity-and-debt/articleshow/97870324.cms">EV startup Magenta Mobility raises $40 million in equity and debt</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/adani-group-delhivery-nykaa-policybazaar-among-stocks-to-watch-on-monday/articleshow/97852221.cms">Sensex, Nifty50 end lower amid fall in Adani stocks, PSU banks, IT, metal stocks</a>

Sebi 'fully equipped', could set up a panel of experts: Centre to SC on Adani issue

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its order on a batch of PILs on the recent <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword> shares crash triggered by the <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="hindenburg-research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword>'s fraud allegations. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala is likely to deliver its verdict over setting up of a panel of domain experts for strengthening existing regulatory measures for stock markets. While reserving its order, the top court on February 17 had refused to accept in a sealed cover the Centre's suggestion on a proposed panel of experts. Observing that it wanted full transparency for protection of investors, the top court had also ruled out the possibility of any sitting judge overseeing the functioning of the proposed panel. Stressing that statutory bodies like market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (<keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword>) are fully equipped and are on job, the central government had expressed apprehension that any unintentional message to the investors that regulatory bodies in India needed monitoring by a panel may have some adverse impact on the flow of money into the country. The Centre had told the bench that it wanted to provide details such as names and the scope of the panel's mandate in a sealed cover . Stock market regulator SEBI, in its note filed in the top court, had indicated it is not in favour of banning short-selling or sale of borrowed shares, and said it is investigating allegations made by a tiny short-seller against the <keyword id="76451" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="Adani" source="Orion">Adani</keyword> Group as well as its share price movements. Till now, four PILs have been filed in the top court on the issue by lawyers M L Sharma, Vishal Tiwari, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Mukesh Kumar, who claims to be a social activist. Tiwari, in his PIL, sought a direction to the Centre to constitute a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to inquire into the Hindenburg Research report which has made a slew of allegations against the business conglomerate led by industrialist Gautam Adani. Another PIL filed by advocate M L Sharma sought prosecution of short-seller Nathan Anderson of the US-based Hindenburg Research and his associates in India and the US for allegedly exploiting innocent investors and the "artificial crashing" of the Adani Group's stock value in the market. Congress leader Thakur, in his plea, has sought an investigation under the supervision of a sitting apex court judge against the Adani Group of companies in light of the allegations. The fourth PIL seeks a probe by multiple central government agencies under the supervision of a panel or a former apex court judge against the Adani Group following allegations of fraud and share price manipulation. "Direct appropriate audit (transactional and forensic audits), inquiry and investigation by appropriate agencies such as Serious Frauds Investigation Office (SFIO); Registrar of Companies (RoC); Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI); ED (Directorate of Enforcement) on money-laundering aspect; I-T (Income-Tax Department on aspects of offshore transactions and tax-havens involved and DRI( Department of Revenue Intelligence), " the fourth plea said. Besides seeking a direction to the Centre and its agencies to render cooperation in the probe, the PIL has sought a direction to appoint a retired judge of the apex court or a committee to oversee and monitor the inquiry and investigation . Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after the Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate. The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.

Adani-Hindenburg row: SC to pronounce order on panel of experts on Thursday

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the plea of <keyword id="6355629" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="google" source="Orion">Google</keyword> LLC seeking modification of its January 19 order and said the company can raise its grievances during the hearing of its appeal before the <keyword id="6396355" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nclat" source="Orion">NCLAT</keyword>. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said at most it can add "without prejudice" in the January 19 order and nothing more. Senior advocate <keyword id="87029" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="maninder-singh" source="Orion">Maninder Singh</keyword>, appearing for the US tech giant said some portion in the January 19 order needs to be deleted. The bench said the order was dictated in the open court and therefore there is nothing to clarify or modify. The counsel appearing for the Competition Commission of India (CCI) said the appeal of Google LLC is listed for hearing next week before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and they can raise these issues before the tribunal. The bench told Singh, "Sorry, it can't be done. We will not do it. You can raise all these grievances during the hearing of the appeals". On January 19, in a setback to Google, the top court had endorsed the order of the NCLAT declining to grant an interim stay on the imposition of a penalty of Rs 1,337 crore on the US tech giant by the competition regulator for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the <keyword id="6355645" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="android" source="Orion">Android</keyword> mobile device ecosystem. The top court had said at the interlocutory stage, it would suffice to say that the findings of the CCI against Google were neither without jurisdiction nor suffering from any manifest error warranting its interference. It had granted a week's time to the US firm to deposit 10 per cent of Rs 1,337 crore penalty imposed on it by the CCI. The top court had asked the NCLAT to decide Google's appeal against the competition regulator's order by March 31 this year after charting out the time schedule for the hearing. "It is suffice to note that the findings which have been arrived at by the CCI cannot be held, at the interlocutory stage, to be either without jurisdiction or suffering from a manifest error which would have necessitated interference at the interlocutory stage", it had ordered. Google had earlier moved the top court against the January 4 order of the NCLAT refusing an interim stay on the competition regulator imposing a Rs 1,337 crore penalty on it. The NCLAT, however, had admitted the search giant's challenge to the CCI imposing the fine for abusing the dominant position of its Android smartphone operating system in the country and ordered listing of its plea in April. The US headquartered firm, during the hearing, had said without prejudice, it was ready to partly comply with the order of the CCI. "These may be followed to the following extent - A. Google would ensure unbundling of only search and chrome from <keyword id="3295" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="play" source="Orion">Play</keyword>, chrome from search; In terms of the decision of the EC (European Commission) dated 18 July 2018, Google would ensure that the search app pre installation exclusivity only on portfolio wise RSAs would not be pursued," the top court had said. It had noted that the NCLAT had listed the appeal for final hearing and hence, did not hear the case on merits. Earlier, the CCI had said the issue pertaining to alleged abuse of dominant position by Google in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystem is of "national importance" and the world is looking at how India is dealing with the matter. The CCI had on October 20 last year asked Google to allow smartphone users on the Android platform to uninstall applications and let them select a search engine of their choice. That order was to become effective from January 19. On October 20 last year, the CCI besides slapping the steep penalty on Google had also ordered the internet major to cease and desist from various unfair business practices. The regulator, which passed the order after having directed a detailed probe more than three years ago, has also asked Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline. The CCI, which had started probing the case in April 2019, has directed that Original Equipment Manufacturers should not be restrained from choosing from amongst Google's proprietary applications to be pre-installed and also not be forced to pre-install a bouquet of applications on their smart devices. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/india-finds-5-9-million-tonnes-of-lithium-deposits-the-fuel-of-the-future/slidelist/97802755.cms">India finds 5.9 million tonnes of lithium deposits, the fuel of the future</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/sensex-snaps-2-day-winning-run-amid-weak-global-cues-metal-energy-stocks-weigh/articleshow/97802796.cms">Sensex snaps 2-day winning run amid weak global cues; metal, energy stocks weigh</a>

SC dismisses Google's plea for modification in order upholding NCLAT view on penalty

<keyword id="6358821" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="shiv-sena" source="Orion">Shiv Sena</keyword> chief whip Sunil Prabhu Wednesday alleged in the Supreme Court that Maharashtra Governor's direction to the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government to take a floor test in the Assembly on Thursday was "malafide, unconstitutional, and illegal." The plea challenging the Governor's direction was mentioned before a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala who took note of submissions of senior advocate A M Singhvi that an urgent hearing was needed and is scheduled to hear the matter at 5 pm. The petition contended that Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari vide communication dated June 28, 2022 (which was received today i.e., on June 29 at about 9:00 am) has decided to hold a floor test in complete defiance of the fact that this court is seized of the issue of the disqualification proceedings. "Such undue haste is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14," said the plea and sought directions seeking setting aside of the impugned communication sent by the Governor to the Chief Minister as well as to the secretary of the Assembly. "It is submitted that this Court is considering the validity of the disqualification proceedings and has kept the matter for hearing on July 11, 2022. The issue of disqualification is directly connected/interlinked with the issue of floor tests. "It is submitted that the impugned communications are entirely based on media reports with no concrete material whatsoever. None of the 39 MLAs, it appears, have individually or collectively written to the Hon'ble Governor about their decision to withdraw support from the MVA-led government," the plea said. Prabhu submitted in his plea that the impugned directions ought not to have been issued without the aid and advice of the council of the ministers led by the Chief Minister. "It is surprising that the leader of the opposition admittedly meets the Governor at 10:00 pm on June 28, 2022, and the impugned communications are also of the same date. This only shows the undue haste with which the Hon'ble Governor has acted without even asking the CM for his views in respect of the political scenario in the State. "The impugned directions, it seems, have been issued on the 'aid and advice of the leader of the opposition, which is clearly not contemplated under the constitution," the plea said. The petition stated that there is absolutely no ground or material to call for an urgent floor test on June 30, 2022, when this court is already seized of parallel proceedings and wherein constitutional issues are to be decided. "The Governor with little or scant respect to the sanctity and dignity of this court has proceeded to go ahead and order a floor test in a clear attempt to shield the MLAs from the punishment entailed on account of the constitutional sin of defection. "The floor test, no doubt, is a constitutional mandate to ascertain who has the majority as our democracy is founded on the rule of the majority. An equally concomitant consideration and constitutional imperative in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution which prescribes and outlines who can be entitled to vote or be a part of the Assembly," the plea said. Prabhu contended that the respondents in the disqualification petitions have already lost their membership on the day they voluntarily gave up their membership from Shiv Sena. "The disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are only a formal adjudication of this fact or otherwise of disqualification. The order of the Speaker/Deputy Speaker is an ex post facto recognition of the event of disqualification which had occurred at an anterior point of time," it said. Koshyari has asked the Maharashtra Legislature Secretary to hold a floor test of the <keyword id="8400868" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="MVA-government" source="Orion">MVA government</keyword> at 11 am on Thursday. The Governor's letter comes amid the rebellion in the ruling Shiv Sena by senior minister <keyword id="193503" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="eknath-shinde" source="Orion">Eknath Shinde</keyword>, who has been camping in Guwahati since last week with the majority of party legislators and several independent MLAs, which has pushed the government led by Thackeray, who is also the Sena president, into a crisis. Earlier, the apex court on June 27 had kept in abeyance the disqualification proceedings against rebel Shiv Sena MLAs before the Deputy Speaker of the state Assembly till July 11, and also sought responses from the state government and others on their pleas questioning the legality of notices seeking their disqualification. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/rupee-could-slide-to-82-as-a-strong-dollar-is-nullifying-rbi-efforts/articleshow/92543254.cms">Rupee could slide to 82 as a strengthening dollar is nullifying RBI efforts</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/zepto-dunzo-among-the-next-122-unicorns-from-india-heres-the-complete-hurun-list/articleshow/92545281.cms">Zepto, Dunzo among the next 122 unicorns from India — here's the complete Hurun list</a>

Maha crisis: Sena calls floor test illegal and malafide

Ahmedabad, May 15 () The Gujarat High Court hasasked the state government to take necessary steps to regulatethe "exorbitant" fees charged by private hospitals which areauthorised to treat coronavirus patients.The order was passed on Thursday by a division benchof Justices J B Pardiwala and Ilesh Vora which took suo motu(on its own) cognisance of news reports about various issuesrelated to the coronavirus pandemic, including high cost oftreatment in private hospitals.The bench warned private hospitals against charginghigh amount for treatment of COVID-19 patients.The HC, in its ruling, noted that some privatehospitals authorised by the government to treat coronaviruspatients in Ahmedabad are charging fees "running in lakhs ofrupees and an ordinary man will never be able to afford toavail adequate treatment from a private hospital".The bench directed the state government to ensure thatprivate hospitals do not charge "exorbitant fees for thetreatment of COVID-19 patients".Since state-run hospitals are almost full with COVID-19 patients, the bench stressed that the government shouldauthorise more private medical facilities to treat such cases.The HC noted that fee structure of such privatehospitals "should be regulated by the state government for thepurpose of COVID-19 treatment"."These are difficult times and not the time to dobusiness and earn profit. Medical services are the mostessential service and private hospitals can not demand lakhsof rupees from a patient."Few private hospitals in Ahmedabad are demandingexorbitant fees running in lakhs of rupees. This is absolutelyunjustified and deserves to be deprecated," said the highcourt.While asking the state to step in and "resolve theissue" immediately, the court even issued a warning to privatehospitals.The bench said "If private hospitals do not budge andcontinue to demand exorbitant amount, then this court willhave to take legal action, including cancellation of licence".Gujarat, which had recorded 9,592 coronavirus casesand 586 deaths till May 14, is one of the states worst-hit bythe viral infection. PJT PDRSY RSY

You Searched For "j b pardiwala" and got 16 results

SC declines SIT, CBI probe into allegations against Adani group

PTI

SC entrusts ex-judge Rao with task of preparing report on finalisation of constitution of AIFF

PTI

Can't give indefinite extension, submit report on Adani-Hindenburg probe by Aug 14: SC to SEBI

IANS

'Hare-brained idea': SC rejects PIL for registration of live-in relationships with Centre

PTI

SC to hear plea seeking probe into Hindenburg Research report on Adani group companies

PTI

'Very seminal issue', SC refers pleas for same-sex marriage to a constitutional bench

IANS

SC extends stay on order quashing write-off of Yes Bank's AT1 bonds

IANS

Adani-Hindenburg row: Supreme Court adjourns hearing

ANI

Supreme Court to hear pleas on Adani-Hindenburg row on May 12

PTI

SC seeks views of Centre, SEBI on Hindenburg report on Adani group companies

PTI

SC ruling limited to interim relief, didn't decide merits of our appeal: Google

IANS

Sebi 'fully equipped', could set up a panel of experts: Centre to SC on Adani issue

IANS

Adani-Hindenburg row: SC to pronounce order on panel of experts on Thursday

PTI

SC dismisses Google's plea for modification in order upholding NCLAT view on penalty

PTI

Maha crisis: Sena calls floor test illegal and malafide

PTI

Regulate fees of pvt hospitals treating COVID-19 patients: HC

PTI