Insider-trading case: SAT reserves order on Reliance plea

The matter dates back to 2007, when RIL, prior to the merger of Reliance Petroleum with itself, allegedly short-sold 4.1 per cent stake in RPL to prevent a slump in the stock.

The Securities Appellate Tribunal on Monday concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict on a case by Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) against market regulator Sebi's rejection of the firm's consent application for an alleged insider-trading case.

The SAT concluded the hearing on the matter under which RIL challenged Sebi's decision to take the case out of the consent mechanism process saying the amount involved is too large.

Senior RIL counsel Janak Dwarkadas requested SAT to ask the Securities and Exchange Board of India to fix a time-table for hearing the consent application once again.

The consent mechanism allows companies and individuals to settle their disputes with the Sebi by paying a sum without admission or denial of the alleged wrongdoing, but disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains.

The matter dates back to 2007, when RIL, prior to the merger of Reliance Petroleum with itself, allegedly short-sold 4.1 per cent stake in RPL valued at Rs 4,023 crore (Rs 40.23 billion) to prevent a slump in the stock.

The RPL shares were sold first in the futures market and later in the spot market, covering the share sales in the futures market, it was alleged.

In 2008, Sebi initiated a probe into the matter and in 2010 initiated quasi-judicial proceedings and said it had found that RIL had booked a profit of Rs 513 crore (Rs 5.13 billion) in the futures segment through this deal worth Rs 4,023 crore (Rs 40.23 billion).

The Sebi argued that the company was aware of the sale of shares and sold futures ahead of that, therefore amounting to insider-trading and sent a show-cause notice to the company.

RIL had challenged the Sebi show-cause notice in December 2010.

Following this, Sebi ordered a probe and found that RIL had violated insider-trading norms. Though RIL moved Sebi for consent settlement, the regulator did not entertain the application, forcing RIL to move the SAT.