SAT reserves order on RIL plea in insider trading case

. The SAT concluded the hearing on the matter under which RIL challenged Sebi's decision to take the case out of the consent mechanism process saying the amount involved is too large. The SAT on Monday concluded the hearingand reserved its verdict on a case by Reliance Industries Limited RIL) against market regulator Sebi's rejection of the firm's consent application for an alleged insider-trading case. The SAT concluded the hearing on the matter under whichRIL challenged Sebi's decision to take the case out of theconsent mechanism process saying the amount involved is toolarge. Senior RIL counsel Janak Dwarkadas requested SecuritiesAppellate Tribunal (SAT) to ask the Sebi to fix a time-tablefor hearing the consent application once again. The consent mechanism allows companies and individuals tosettle their disputes with the Sebi by paying a sum withoutadmission or denial of the alleged wrongdoing, butdisgorgement of any ill-gotten gains. The matter dates back to 2007, when RIL, prior to themerger of Reliance Petroleum with itself, allegedly short-sold4.1% stake in RPL valued at Rs 4,0230000000 to preventa slump in the stock. The RPL shares were sold first in the futures market andlater in the spot market, covering the share sales in thefutures market, it was alleged.In 2008, Sebi initiated a probe into the matter and in2010 initiated quasi-judicial proceedings and said it hadfound that RIL had booked a profit of Rs 5130000000 in the futures segment through this deal worth Rs 4,0230000000. Sebi argued that the company was aware of the sale ofshares and sold futures ahead of that, therefore amounting toinsider-trading and sent a show-cause notice to thecompany.RIL had challenged the Sebi show-cause notice inDecember 2010. Following this, Sebi ordered a probe and found that RILhad violated insider-trading norms. Though RIL moved Sebi forconsent settlement, the regulator did not entertain theapplication, forcing RIL to move the SAT. PTI

Regulations referred

  • No regulations refered.

Cases Referred