)
The Securities Appellate Tribunal today adjourned the final hearing in the appeal related to the insider trading case filed by Reliance Industries against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to October 11.
The tribunal rejected an intervening petition filed by Dr M Furquan, the editor of an Urdu daily, Sach Bilkul Sach.
During the previous hearing on August 30, Furquan had filed the petition on the ground of public interest.
Meanwhile, arguments between RIL counsel Janak Dwarkadas and Sebi counsel and advocate general DJ Khambatta continued.
Dwarkadas today maintained that Sebi has not provided with relevant documents they had sought for inspection.
He said the company wants appropriate order authorising investigation into the case and copies of orders initiating investigation and re-investigation.
Khambatta said the information sought by RIL was all present in 6,400-odd pages given to the company. He further asked RIL counsel to mention in an affidavit that the information they've asked for isn't been given.
Maintaining that company's appeal was not admissible, Khambatta said the RIL is using 'delaying tactics' and has still not replied to the show cause notice issued in the case.
This case, which dates back to 2007, is related to alleged insider trading involving the company’s erstwhile subsidiary Reliance Petroleum. The 'undue gains' made by Reliance have been pegged at Rs 513 crore by Sebi.
Dwarkadas said the documents they are seeking are important for them to ensure Sebi has followed the right process, which will help them formulate further action.
Khambatta said as consent settlements are conducted completely at the discretion of Sebi and it isn't obliged to provide any information or documents, despite that the regulator has given RIL enough documents.
Khambatta, who will continue his arguments during the next hearing, also mentioned that RIL's consent application was also rejected by Sebi's high power advisory committee (HPAC).
RIL's appeal before SAT is the manner in which it's consent application was rejected by Sebi and also the regulator's refusal to provide documents it had sought.
The consent process allows entities to settle charges against them without admitting or denying guilt by payment of a monetary penalty.
