Latest news with #Actof2013
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Lokpal dismisses all complaints against former Sebi chief Madhabi Puri Buch
Anti-corruption body, Lokpal, has dismissed all complaints made against Madhabi Puri Buch, the former chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), in connection with allegations linked to the Hindenburg Research report. The Lokpal stated there was no credible evidence to justify any investigation against Buch. "... We have concluded that the allegations in the complaint(s) are more based on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences in Part III of the Act of 1988, so as to direct an investigation therefore... accordingly, these complaints are disposed of," the order stated. The order further noted: "The complainant(s), being conscious of this position, advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report, but the analysis of the allegations by us ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity." The decision was issued on May 28 by a six-member bench led by Lokpal chairperson Justice AM Khanwilkar. Five key allegations examined While reviewing the case, the Lokpal examined five main allegations made against Buch: Investments made by Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch in a fund reportedly linked to the Adani Group. Receipt of consultancy fees from companies such as Mahindra & Mahindra and Blackstone Inc., allegedly in return for favours. Alleged rental income from Wockhardt viewed as a quid pro quo. Gains from selling ICICI Bank ESOPs between 2017 and 2024. Claims of pretending to recuse herself from matters involving M&M and Blackstone while still being involved. The Lokpal found no substance in any of the claims. "The complainant(s), by making such unverified and flimsy or fragile allegations, only to sensationalise or so to say politicise the matter, has inevitably trivialised the process before the Lokpal. It is nothing short of vexatious proceedings actionable under Section 46 of the Act of 2013. We say no more," the order noted. Complaints linked to Hindenburg report The complaints, including one from Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, were based largely on a report by Hindenburg Research, which had alleged that Buch and her husband were involved in offshore funds tied to the Adani Group. The Lokpal clarified that the report alone could not form the basis for action. "The complainant(s), being conscious of this position, advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report, but the analysis of the allegations by us ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity," the order said. Buch and her husband had denied the claims, saying the accusations were an attempt to tarnish her image and undermine the credibility of Sebi. The Adani Group had also called the report malicious and accused it of manipulating selective public information. Formal proceedings and responses Lokpal had first asked Buch to respond to the complaints on November 8 last year. She submitted her affidavit on December 7, 2024, responding to each allegation and raising preliminary objections. An oral hearing was held on December 19, 2024, where both sides were allowed to present their arguments. Additional written submissions were later made. Oral arguments were heard again on April 9, 2025. According to the order: "The advocate for the complainant in the second complaint made exhaustive oral submissions. The proxy counsel appearing for the complainant in the third complaint opted to file written submissions. Although the complainant in the third complaint has been represented by an advocate, neither the complainant nor the advocate appeared to make oral submissions." Buch was represented by a senior advocate who gave a detailed argument in her defence. After hearing both sides, the bench allowed more time for written submissions before reaching its decision. Allegations deemed speculative The Lokpal ultimately found the allegations to be speculative and lacking credible support. "... what the complainant(s) are inviting us to do is to conduct a roving inquiry into the allegations which are unfounded, speculative and bordering on frivolity," the order said. Madhabi Puri Buch served as Sebi chief from March 2, 2022, until the end of her term on February 28, 2025. The Lokpal's decision brings closure to the allegations made against her, reaffirming that there was no reliable evidence to support the claims.
Hans India
28-05-2025
- Business
- Hans India
Lokpal gives clean chit to former SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch in Hindenburg allegations case
New Delhi: The Lokpal on Wednesday gave a clean chit to former SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch over the allegations levelled against her in the issue of US short-seller Hindenburg Research. The anti-corruption body, headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (retd), stated, in an order dated May 28, that there is no material evidence to order an investigation against Buch. "We have concluded that the allegations in the Complaint(s) are more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences in Part III of the (Prevention of Corruption) Act of 1988, so as to direct an investigation.... accordingly, these complaints are disposed of," the Lokpal's order said. "The Complainant(s) being conscious of this position advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report but the analysis of the allegations by us, ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity," the order further stated. The Lokpal examined five main allegations made against Buch. These include a quid pro quo in the garb of consultancy services fees from entities like M&M and Blackstone Inc., and a quid pro quo from Wockhardt in the garb of rental income. There was also an allegation of undue advantage gained by Buch through the sale of ICICI Bank ESOPs over a period of five years between 2017 and 2024 that has been dismissed. Another allegation in which the Lokpal found no evidence relates to the pretence of recusal from matters related to M&M and Blackstone Inc. The Lokpal has come down heavily against the complainants, observing that the complainants did not submit any credible evidence in the matter while attempting to make the authority go into a roving inquiry. "What the Complainant(s) are inviting us to do is to conduct a roving inquiry into the allegations which are unfounded, speculative and bordering on frivolity," the order states. "The Complainant(s) by making such unverified and flimsy or fragile inevitably trivialised the process before the Lokpal. It is nothing short of vexatious proceedings actionable under Section 46 of the Act of 2013. We say no more," the order further stated. Following the allegations that surfaced in August 2024, then Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Chairperson Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch had strongly denied the charges, calling it a 'character assassination attempt' because an Enforcement action and show cause notice was issued to the Nate Anderson-led company the previous month. According to the joint statement issued by the couple, 'In the context of allegations made in the Hindenburg Report dated August 10, 2024, against us, we would like to state that we strongly deny the baseless allegations and insinuations made in the report'. 'The same are devoid of any truth. Our life and finances are an open book. All disclosures as required have already been furnished to SEBI over the years. We have no hesitation in disclosing any and all financial documents, including those that relate to the period when we were strictly private citizens, to any and every authority that may seek them,' read the joint statement. Meanwhile, Hindenburg Research has itself shut down operations amid major short-selling controversies in the US that brought the company under a cloud.
The Hindu
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 30, 2025) decided to hear in July arguments over an order of the anti-corruption ombudsman, Lokpal, to examine complaints against sitting High Court judges. Justice B.R. Gavai, who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, told assembled lawyers in the suo motu case dealing with the question whether Lokpal has jurisdiction to entertain corruption complaints against HC judges that the case has to be heard by another Bench. Justice Oka, on the Special Bench with Justice Surya Kant, explains to senior advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that 'this is something for the CJI to decide' and propriety required the current Bench to not continue hearing the suo motu case. Justice Gavai was cleared for appointment as the 52nd Chief Justice of India from May 14. Justice Gavai, who is currently Chief Justice of India-designate, informed lawyers that the suo motu case would come up before a fresh Bench in July, after the apex court re-opens post summer vacations. The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court. The complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm. The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar. The top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was 'something very, very disturbing' and concerned the independence of the judiciary. It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant. While hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges. It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his consideration. 'Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013,' said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar on January 27. The Lokpal added, 'We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally – as to whether the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all.' The order noted it would be 'too naive' to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression 'any person' in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act. (With PTI inputs)
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear in July arguments over an order of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to examine complaints against sitting high court judges Justice B R Gavai , who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter will have to go before another bench."It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka said, "it is a matter of propriety.""We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his consideration."Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January Lokpal added, "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally -- as to whether the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all."The order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of section 14 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Hindustan Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC sets July to hear matter over Lokpal's jurisdiction in examining complaints against judges
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear in July arguments over an order of anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal to examine complaints against sitting high court judges. Justice B R Gavai, who was heading a special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka, said the matter will have to go before another bench. "It is something for the chief justice to decide," Justice Oka, "it is a matter of propriety." "We will have it somewhere in July," Justice Gavai added. The apex court was dealing with a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of the high court. The complaints allege the judge influenced an additional district judge in the state and a judge of the same high court slated to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company to favour the firm. The private company, it was alleged, was earlier a client of the high court judge in question while he was practising as an advocate at the Bar. The top court had on February 20 stayed the Lokpal's order, saying it was "something very, very disturbing" and concerned the independence of the judiciary. It then issued notices and sought responses from the Centre, the Lokpal registrar and the complainant. While hearing the matter on March 18, the apex court said it would examine the issue over the jurisdiction of Lokpal in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges. It asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar to assist it as an amicus curiae in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a high court judge would never fall within the ambit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. In its order, the Lokpal directed the complaints and relevant materials received in its registry in the two matters to be forwarded to the office of the Chief Justice of India for his consideration. "Awaiting the guidance of the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 2013," said the Lokpal bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar on January 27. The Lokpal added, "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally as to whether the judges of the high court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all." The order noted it would be "too naive" to argue that a high court judge would not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause of section 14 of the 2013 Act.
