In this April 2, 2024 file photo, Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Madhabi Puri Buch speaks during CII's 17th Corporate Governance Summit, in Mumbai Photo: PTI In this April 2, 2024 file photo, Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Madhabi Puri Buch speaks during CII's 17th Corporate Governance Summit, in Mumbai Photo: PTI

In a big development, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday stayed a special court order to register an FIR against former SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch and other SEBI and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) officials in connection with a listing fraud case, Bar and Bench confirmed.

brinde777

The Bombay High Court order reads, "Complainant seeks time to file a reply. After hearing all the parties, it appears that the judge has passed the order mechanically without going to details and without attributing any role to the applicants. Hence, the order is stayed,betef.com" as quoted by Bar and Bench.

Single-judge Justice SG Dige provided relief to Buch and two others after they petitioned the Court to challenge a previous order.

However, Kapila's health issues, including persistent fever and back cramps, made it impossible for him to turn up for the match.

The HC's judgement came on petitions filed by Buch, three current whole-time SEBI directors - Ashwani Bhatia, Ananth Narayan G and Kamlesh Chandra Varshney and two BSE officials - Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Ramamurthy and its former chairman and public interest director Pramod Agarwal, as reported by PTI.

The pleas had sought quashing of the order passed by the special court directing the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to register an FIR against them pertaining to certain allegations of fraud committed in 1994 while listing a company on the BSE.

The special court had passed the order on the complaint filed by Sapan Shrivastava, a media reporter, seeking investigation into the alleged offences committed by the accusedbet585, involving large scale financial fraud, regulatory violations and corruption.they petitioned the Court to challenge a previous order.