Amalendu Mukherjee vs Sebi on 19 January, 2021
Further, relying on the judgment
of this Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Agarwal vs. SEBI [2004 (49) SCL
351], it was contended that the intention of the regulations was neither to
ban genuine corporate trading in securities nor to treat generally known
public information as UPSI as held by the Apex Court in Hindustan Liver
ltd. Vs. SEBI (1988) 18 SCL 311. So in short, the core of the submissions
of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the forensic audit reports on
which SEBI vests its arguments are not fully supported by facts and,
therefore, the impugned order is based on surmises and farces and,
therefore, is liable to be quashed.