๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฐ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐ค๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ง๐ข๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฌ๐
In a significant judgment concerning one of India’s most closely watched securities enforcement matters, hon’ble Supreme Court of India has set aside findings of fraudulent and manipulative conduct against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and 12 other entities in the long-running Reliance Petroleum derivatives trading case.
In this context, Mr. Sumit Agrawal, Senior Partner, Regstreet Law Advisors and former Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Officer, has been quoted in The Economic Times article titled โ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ง ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐๐๐, 12 ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ โน447-๐ค๐ณ ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ต๐ณ๐ฐ ๐๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐๐ณ๐ข๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ข๐ด๐ฆโ highlighting the broader regulatory significance of the judgment.
Mr. Agrawal observed that the Court has drawn a clear distinction between position-limit or disclosure violations on the one hand and manipulative or fraudulent conduct under the PFUTP framework on the other.
He noted that:
โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ช๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐จ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ฉ ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ณ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฑ๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ช๐ต ๐ด๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด, ๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐จ๐บ, ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ด.โ
The ruling is likely to be closely examined by market participants, compliance professionals and enforcement practitioners, particularly for its treatment of the evidentiary threshold required to establish fraud and manipulation in the securities market, as distinct from technical or disclosure-related breaches.
Readers are welcome to share their views at info@regstreetlaw.com.
A copy of the news article is attached herewith.
