"Having perused the review petition, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed," the bench said in its short order passed on May 8.
The review petition is considered in judges chambers through circulation of papers, sans counsel as per the Supreme Court rules.
In its judgment, the court had then declined to order a CBI or SIT probe and said in its judgement that market regulator SEBI was conducting a "comprehensive investigation" into the allegations and its conduct "inspires confidence". The court had then asked SEBI to complete its probe into allegations made by US short seller firm Hindenburg Research, against the Adani Group within three months.
The plea filed by Jaiswal, through advocate Neha Rathi, in February, 2024, claimed there were "mistakes and errors" in the judgment, and in light of certain new material that have been received by the counsel for the petitioner, there were sufficient reasons for a review of the verdict.
It contended the SEBI had in its report only updated the court about the status of the 24 investigations it undertook on the allegations, but did not disclose any findings or details of action taken.
"It cannot be concluded that there has been no regulatory failure unless the findings of the SEBI investigations are publicly reported," it said.
The court had then disposed of a batch of PILs filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari and others. It had said no apparent regulatory failure can be attributed to SEBI and there is prima facie no deliberate inaction or inadequacy in the investigation by it.
The court had also rejected a charge of conflict of interest with members of the court-appointed expert committee led by former judge Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
The committee, in its report submitted in May, 2023 said the allegations of stock price manipulation or violation of MPS norms by Adani Group companies cannot be proved at this stage.
