Bombay High Court has agreed to grant urgent hearing on March 4 to Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), Bombay Stock Exchange's (BSE's) plea against FIR order in 1994 Cals Refineries stock listing fraud case, according to media reports.  Former Sebi chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, as well as three of its current whole-time directors—Ashwani Bhatia, Ananth Narayan G, and Kamlesh Chandra Varshney and two senior individuals at the BSE, Pramod Agarwal and Sundararaman Ramamurthy have moved the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash a special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court's order directing the police to register a first information report against them for fraudulent stock listing in 1994. According to Bar and Bench, the matter was mentioned before Justice SG Dige on Monday. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for Sebi officials, while Senior Advocate Amit Desai represented BSE officials.    The order from ACB of Worli in Mumbai came just two days after Buch completed her tenure as Sebi chief. In a detailed order dated March 1, special ACB court judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar observed, “The allegations disclose a cognisable offense, necessitating an investigation. There is prima facie evidence of regulatory lapses and collusion, requiring a fair and impartial probe. The inaction by law enforcement and Sebi necessitates judicial intervention under Section 156(3) CrPC.” 

1994 Cals Refineries stock listing fraud case

 The complaint against former chief of Sebi, its three whole time directors and BSE officials in this case was filed by Sapan Shrivastava, 47, a legal reporter from Dombivali in Maharashtra’s Thane district. 

The complainant seeking an FIR registration, asked for an investigation into alleged large-scale financial fraud, regulatory violations, and corruption.

The charges relate to the alleged fraudulent listing of Cals Refineries Ltd on the stock exchange in 1994, reportedly with the involvement of regulatory authorities, particularly Sebi, without adhering to the compliance requirements under the Sebi Act, 1992. The complainant argued that Sebi officials neglected their statutory duty, facilitated market manipulation, and enabled corporate fraud by permitting the listing of a company that did not meet the prescribed norms.