Bombay High Court Stays FIR Order Against Ex-SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch, Other Officials

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday stayed the order issued by a special court in Mumbai to register an FIR against former Securities and Exchange Board of India chief Madhabi Puri Buch and other officials in an alleged corruption case regarding Cals Refinery.

The single-judge high court bench, led by Justice SG Dige, will hear the matter again after four weeks.

While giving the oral order, Dige said that it appears that the special court's judge passed the order to register an FIR against Buch and others mechanically without going into the details of the issue. The order was passed without attributing any role to the applicants, the judge said. The applicants include Buch, three serving whole time members of SEBI and two BSE officials.

The arguments were started by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of SEBI whole time members. He argued that the petitioner has filed a frivolous case and while he mentioned allegations of up to Rs 10 lakhs as bribes, he did not provide any specific details about the same.

The fresh development comes a couple of days after the special court, headed by Judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar, ordered the anti-corruption bureau to file a first information report against Buch, along with three SEBI whole-time members, and BSE Chairman Pramod Agarwal and Chief Executive Officer Sundararaman Ramamurthy.

The order, issued on March 1, came in response to a plea moved by Thane-based scribe Sapan Shrivastava. He alleged irregularities and corruption by SEBI officials in the listing of a company, known as Cals Refineries, in 1994.

The petitioner further alleged that multiple complaints sent to SEBI to act against the alleged irregularities were ignored, which compelled him to seek judicial intervention.

In the high court hearing on Tuesday, Mehta submitted that the complainant has not mentioned any specific details about what irregularities were present when Cals Refinery was allowed to list. He finally asked the court to consider that the issue that is being raised by Shrivastava is 30 years old.

Arguments On Behalf of Buch & BSE Officials

Senior Advocate Amit Desai made submissions on behalf of BSE Managing Director and CEO Sundararaman Ramamurthy, and former chairman and public interest director Pramod Agarwal.

He highlighted to the court that the complainant has alleged corruption against the officials citing mere omission to take action against his complaints. The principal company, that is, Cals Refinery, and its directors, have not been mentioned in the complaint, Desai pointed out.

He further submitted that the special court judge passed the order to register the FIR against the officials without any preliminary enquiry and did not consider that SEBI has already taken several actions against Cals Refinery.

He then summarised his arguments on the irregularity of dates mentioned in the complaint of Shrivastava. Desai mentioned that the company was listed in 1994, while the provisions under which Shrivastava made the complaints came into existence in 2007. It was further highlighted that the company went into liquidation in 2019 but Shrivastava starts his grievance in the complaint from the year 2023.

Desai also mentioned that on March 11, 2024, the petitioner wrote to the SEBI chairperson, urging action on his complaint regarding Cals Refinery. Shortly after, on March 19, he sent a brief three-line letter to the Director General of the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau, vaguely mentioning his allegations and calling for action.

Rather than providing concrete evidence, he merely lists legal provisions and demands an investigation, Desai said.

Without allowing any reasonable time for a response, he proceeded to file a complaint on April 6. His conduct suggests an attempt to portray himself as a social activist, though there is little to support such a claim, the counsel further submitted.

Thereafter, advocate Sudeep Pasbola made arguments on behalf of Buch.

Meanwhile, Sapan Shrivastava represented himself and sought more time to file his reply.