SEBI

I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CiVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

..

OF 2011

I.A. NO.

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 392 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF I S. Krishnaswamy & Ors

Petitioners Versus

Ministry of Finance & Ors

Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:Debashish Nath

Applicant

(PAPER BOOK)

FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT:

R.GOPALAKRISHNAN Advocate of the Applicant Code NO.1573 104 Lawyers Chamber

)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.

OF 2011 IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 392 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF

S. Krishnaswamy 8t Ors

Petitioners Versus

Ministry of Finance & Ors

Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:Debashish Nath

Applicant INDEX

Page No.

Particulars

S.No. 1.

Application for

2.

Annexure A1(Colly)

1-'6 g - \0

i.

A copy of application made by the applicant to Central Public Information Officer, SE,81 on dated 23.5.2011

11

ii.

A copy of reply address to applicant

by Central Public Information officer, SEBI on dated 22.6.2011

I

...

3.

Annexure A2(Colly) i.

A copy of application moved by applicant on dated 29.6.2011 before the Appellant Authority

1

-

\

SEBI vide appeal NO.1228/2011 ii.

A copy of order passed by the Appellant Authority seal in Appeal No. 1228/2011 on dated 29.7.2011

4.

Annexure A3 A copy of letter dated 16.8.2011 addressed to applicant herein by Central Public Information -off.ICer, SESI

5.

Annexure-A4:-

\

A copy of News report downloaded from website of economic times on dated 18.10.2011

6.

Annexure-A 2:Ii. ,.."'""

",f nAU/C!

rAnnrt t1nlA/nln!:llt1 frnrYl

tS -

\1- - \ g

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 10,

I.A. NO.

I

OF 2011 IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO, 392 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF S. Krishnaswamy & Ors

Petitioners Versus

Ministry of Finance & Ors

Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:Debashish Nath

Applicant

APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENTIINTERVENER TO, THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE - NAMED APPLICANT. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1.

That the present Application for Impleadment ;s being flied by the

Applicant herein for impleading as necessary party and as citizen of India, who is public spirited' person and against the corruption and advocate by profession practicinq in High Court of judicature at Mumbai and its subordinate COUtts from year of 2007. The applicant has no personal interest in the litigation but trying to raise the issue in larger interest of people out of sheer concern and the intentions are ,bonafide and genuine for the interest of the public.

2.

The applicant is filing this application in the interest of public for

drawing attention of this Hon'ble Court towards the ignorance/omission of

SEal towards the Insider Trading of certain corporate house and just to facilitate these big corporate house.

3.

The applicant had approach the central public information officer, SEBI

on dated 23.5.2011 in an application under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005,

" information demanding the vital

with regards to "share trading/insider

trading" activities of big corporate house and action/status initiated by SEBI against the big corporate house. The applicant did not get any information because of rejection of said request by the concern authority on the ground that there is no as such information available with the concern authority. A copy of application made by the applicant to Central Public Information on dated 23.5.2011 and reply address to applicant by Central Public Information officer on dated 22.6.2011 is annexed and marked as Annexure A1(Colly).

The applicant against the rejection of said request flied an appeal on

4.

dated 29.6.2011 before the appellate authority, whole time member SEBI. I

However the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2011 as the appellant authority did not find any fault on the rejection of the information sought by applicant from Central Public Information officer of SEBI vide order

dated 29.07.2011. A copy of application moved by applicant on dated

.

29.6.2011 before the Appellant Authority SEBI vide appeal NO.1228/2011 and .

order passed by the Appellant Authority SEBI in Appeal No. 1228/2011 on dated 29.7.2011 is annexed and marked as Annexure A2(Colly).

5.

The Central , . Public Information Officer on dated 16.8.2011 issued a

letter to the applicant herein in compliance of order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the Appellant Authority SEBI in Appeal No. 1228/2011. the relevant operative portion says "as quesi-judiciet proceedings are currently in progress" the deteils sought under Points 1 to 3 would impede the process of investigation, and adversely affect the commercial interest and competitive position of the entities before culmination of the proceedings by way of order, and hence are exempted under Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(d) of the RTf Act,

2005.

/I

A copy of letter dated 16.8.2011 addressed to applicant herein by

,

.

Central Public Information officer, SEBI is annexed and marked as Annexure A3.

The applicant since 24.5.2011 i.e., the day of making first application

6.

.

before Central Public Information SEBI trying to obtain information related to \

• irregularities Ifraud done

blbig Corporate house under the preview of insider

trading which is punishable offence under SEBI Act of 1992 and the SEBI (provision of insider trading) regulation 1992.

7.

In year 2000 Mr. Gurumoorthy, Journalist complained to SEBI about

insider trading in the matter of preferential altotment and conversion of shares of RIL.

SEBI investigated and found that there was substance in the !

complaint of Mr. Gurumoorthy. There was evidence that RIL was involved in preferential allotment, insider trading and conversion of shares which are offences liable for penal action. Even after 11 years SEBI has not launched prosecution against RIL for the above mentioned .offences.,tflC.,.... -(;he."

'YeQ,SonS 8.

best Known to them..

The applicant through some news report and internet got to know

about a letter written by Dr. K.M. Abraham, CFA, whole time member SEBI to Hon'ble Prime Minister of India regarding the Indication given by the Chairman of SEBI Mr. U.K. Sinha

that the SEBI has to go easy on the

selected corporate house which had engaged in wrongdoing and that these were the instruction from the Ministry of Finance. Dr. K.M. Abraham ;s his letter also pointed out that apprehension of undue influence in respect of proper adjudication of offence related to insider trading and other rel.ated

offencel omission or Act done by Big Corporate house in order to defraud with general investor. A copy of letter date 1.6.2011 written by Dr. K.M. Abraham is already annexed as Annexure P14 at page No.52 with the writ petition (C) no. 392/2011.

9.

The Smooth operation of the security market and its healthy growth

and development depend on large extend on the quality and integrity of the

market. Such a market can alone inspire confidence ' in investor. Insider trading lead to loose of confidence of investor insecurity market as they feel that market is rigged and only the few, who have inside information get benefit and make' profit from their investment. Thus process of insider trading '" . corrupts the "level playing field". Hence the practice of insider trading is intended to be prohibited in order to sustain the investor's confidence in the integrity of the security market. It is also well known that the activities like insider trading fraudulent trade practices and professional misconduct are absolute determinable to the interest of ordinary investor's and a strongly depreciated under SEBI Act 1992 and regulation made there under. No punishment is to severe for those indulgencing such activities.

10.

A new report download from www.economictimes.indiatimes.com on

dated 16.10.2011, which is about profit made by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) of approximate RS.500 crores (Rupees five hundred crores ) from the sale of Reliance Petroleum shares for the period of November 1st and

s"

November of 2007 entities acting as agent to RIL sold 18.04 Crores Share or 4.01 % Reliance Petroleum equity for Rs.4.023 Crores. As per provision of SEBI Act any corporate found to be guilty in insider trading apart from the criminal prosecution, a fine of Rs.25 Crore or three times the amount of profit made out of insider trading whichever is higher may be impose. Here in the case of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) the market regulator can impose around three times- of the profit they made out from the insider trading by .!

flouting the rules and the said amount comes around Rs. 1,500 Crores as RIL generated Rs. 500 Crores of profit from the insider trading. Hence the Corporate ::Governanc;; sertously damages the portfolio of general investor \

and lead to massive loss. A copy of News report downloaded from www.economictimes.com website of economic times on dated 18.10.2011 is annexed and marked as Annexure A4.

11.

The applicant on dated 15.10.2011 got to know about Mr. Raj Raja

Ratanam who was convicted and sentenced for 11 years prison and a fine of USD 10 million and forfeitment of USD of 53.4 million for offence made out .

under the preview of insider trading case by the competent US authority. A copy of news report download from www.washingtonpost.com on dated

18.10.2011 is annexed and marked as Annexure A5.

12.

The

present applicant

has strong

apprehension

in respect of

ignorance/favor of present Management of SEBI to the big corporate house who were appointed by Central Government just to facilitate the big corporate house by their own choice which is not only illegal but also against the interest of public at large.

13.

The Writ Petition (C) No. 392/2011 is filed by the petitioner therein is to

protect the interest of common investor which can only be achieved by quashing the notification dated 7.10.2010 Rule 3 (5) (e) of Security and Exchange Board of India (Terms and Condition of Service of Chairman and Members) Rule 1992. The applicant herein also raised an issued related to interest of common investor through RTI application which was not supplied with bonafide intention by the officers of SEBI lead by Mr. U.K. Sinha.

14.

The applicant did not get any information to his RTI application made

before Central Public Information Officers SEBI on dated 24.5.2011 in respect of information sought related to insider trading. However stated

in

the

preceding

management board

lead

paragraphs

and

also

by Mr. U.K. Sinha

for the reasons

because

the present

is not discharging

the

responsibility and dures entrusted to them sincerely, diligently. The present management board

lead bj Mr. U.K. Sinha is deliberately suppressing the \

fact/information regarding the insider trading done by Big Corporate, House including RIL so that they can manipu1atfi Corporate House from escaping

d9t? and favour the Big

the clutches of law. It is also relevant to

mention here that the offence of insider trading also attract the criminal liability of offender inspite of hefty fine.

15.

The Big Corporate Houses using their financial and political influence

by all means .prsvented legal action being taken against it for the crimes

committed by them for more than 11 years by exerting enormous financial and political influence.

16.

!

In view of aforesaid circumstances it is necessary to implead the ,

applicant in array of party alongwith the petitioner, so that the applicant may assist this Hon'ble Court towards

insider trading and favor done by the

management in case of Big Corporate House.

PRAYER It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to : a)

allow the application for impleadment of the applicant

b)

pass such further order or orders which may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case:

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY O.K.OEVESH Advocate

FILED BY: R.GOPALAKRISHNAN Advocate for the applicant 104, Lawyer Chamber, Supreme Court of India New Delhi -110001

, "

\

New Delhi: Filed on: 3/-/D

-)..0//

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO.

.

OF 2011

IN PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 392 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:-

,

Applicant

Debashish Nath

AND IN THE MATTER OF

.1

r'

e0

" '.

\

A

....' ......'\

",

; .... .

"" "

':'

"'i...

\ .'.-

',-

..

/',

,

1"

.....

.. ....

tt'"" "'.,...

....

9

rsus stry r.·

Respondents

of Finance & Ors

.

0 • • -"

'.

Petitioners

S. Krishnaswamy & Ors

!p

AFFIDAVIT I, Debashish Nath S/o

,"

...;

\P'!-

ell

U,MJft\ Nq;H)aged about 32 years Office

at 6, 4 th floor deval chambers Nana Bhai lane fort, Mumbai-400001, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under: 1.

That I am the Applicant in the above Writ Petition (Civil) and I am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such competent swear this affidavit.

2.

That the contents of Application for Impleadment at para 1 to 16 are

true as per the legal advice received and believed by me are true and correct.

3.

I state that the contents of averments made are true and correct. r say

that the Annexure A-1 to A-

at pages

to

produced along with the

aforesaid application are true and correct. ."

4.

That the averments of facts \ stated herein above are true to my ,

knowledge. no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

VERIFICATION '

Verified at Mumbai

on this

j..r

day of October 2011, that all the contents of

para 1 to 4 of the above affidavit are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

, "

ANNEXURE A1(COLL Y)

To,

The Central Public Information Officer.

Dr. Ani! Kumar, Sharma Chief General Manger, Securities Exchange Board of India, SESI Shawan, Plot No. C4-A, G Slock, Sandra Kurla Complex, Sandra (East). Mumbai-400 051.

Name and address of the applicant: Adv. Debasish Nath 6, 4 th Floor, Deval Chambers NanbhaiLane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

Mob. No. 09869245973 email: deba_nath17@rediffmail.com ,

Particulars of Information Required:

i.

Subject Matter of Information:

Insider Trading of Shares in RIL (Reliance Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani

." ii.

The Period to which

Group companies) 151 January 2007 to 30th April 2011

';0_

.,

. ... ..

'"

.. ::..

"

. . 'OJ,.

..' .

th

January. 2007 to 30 April 2011 by SEBI with regard to insider

trading of share transfer.

ii.

The volume of shares involved in the said transaction.

iii.

The persons/companies involved in the said transaction. '"

I

Please furnish the copy of notices.

Mumbai

Adv. Debasish Nath

23.5.2011

(Applicant)

NB : Please find enclosed postal order

\\

...

T(?/jÂŁ

TypeD (§)Py

/1

\ \

BY COURIER Central Public Information Officer Email: cpio_ho@sebLgov.in

CPIO/SVKM/JJ/404-2011/19989 June 22,2011 Shri Debashish Nath,

6, 4 th Floor, Deval Chambers, Nanbhai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

Dear Sir, Sub: Application under Right to information Act (RTI) Act, 2005.

Please refer to your letter dated 23.5.2011 under right to information Act, the reply to your queries is as follows :Point iii), a), b) and c) since quasi judicial proceedings are in progress in this regard the details sought by you are not provided in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

you may if you so desire prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority (SESI) within thirty days, of the receipt of this letter. the details of the Appellate Authroity is Shri Prashant Saran, Whole Time Member & SEBI Appellate Authority, SEBI, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G Siock, Sandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051. •

v

Yours faitbfully,

SV. Krishna Mohan

\\ TM Tl/PGD V:J Py II

ANNEXURE A2(COLL Y)

APPEAL UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 1.0. No

..

(For official use) To,

Appellate Authority, Shri Prashant Saran, Whole Time Member and SEBI Appellate Authority, SESI, SESI Shavan, Plot No. C4A, G Block, Sandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051

1.

Name of the applicant

2.

Address:

: Debashish Nath

5, 4 th Floor, Deval Chambers, Nanbhai Lane, Fort,

Mumbai 400001 3.

Particulars of the Central Public Information Officer: (a)

Name: Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma

(b)

Address: Chief General Manager. SEBI. SEBI Shavan, Plot No.

C4A, G Slor;k, Sandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051.

4.

Date of submission of application: 24.5.2011

5.

Date on which thirty days from submission of application is over :

23.6.2011 6.

Reasons for appeal: (a)

Aggrieved by the response received within prescribed period

(copy of the reply receipt be attached) 7.

Grounds of Appeal: (a)

the application for information sought by me was rejected by the ,

짜

Central Public Information Officer saying "the information sought by you is not available with the concerned departments of SESI". The way and the nature of the answer have no specific finding whether such information was there or not. The answer ;s in district in the style of its appearance. Hence the same had

severely violated

the spirit

of the

'Right to

Information'

leg!slation. the Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides the procedure for obtaining information and sub Section 3 of Section 6 says "Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, (i)

• which is held by another public authority: or

(ii)

the subject matter of which is more closely concerned with the functions of another public authority, The public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part it as may be appropriate to the other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer.

Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application."

(b)

while tAe act provides such an effective and inflexible measures to provide the information, the Central Public Information Officer has not made any effort to provide the infcrmation instead he replied in such an irresponsible manner and not in accordance with the responsibility attached to the responsible seat of a Centd::il Public Information Officer.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of the information by the Central ,

v

Public Information officer, I the appellant request your goodself to proved the information to my above said RTI request dated 24.5.2011.

8.

Last date for filing the appeal: 21.7.2011

9.

Particulars of information

(i)

infojrnation quested a.

How many notices issued against RIL (Reliance Mukesh

Dhirubhai Ambani Group of companies) during the period of 151 January, 2007 to

so" April 2011 by SESI with regard to insider

tradi,ng of share transfer. ,., The volume of shares involved in the said transaction

b. c. (ii)

The persons/companies involved in the said transaction.

Subject

: Insider trading of shares in RIL (Reliance Mukesh

Dhirubhai Arnbani Group of Companies) (iii) 10.

Period: 1st January, 2007 to

so" April 2011.

A fee of RS.1 0 (Rupees ten only) for appeal has been deposited with

the authority vide receipt no. 90E746263 dated 30.6.2011 (Postal Order)

Place: Mumbai Debashish Nath

dated 29.6.2011

Signature of appellant email address.deba-nath17@rediffmail.com web-site ..

Telephone No. 9869245973 dated 29.6.2011

1.0. No

.

received an appeal acknowledgement from Mr/Mrs .........................under Section

resident of

of the Right of Information

Act, 2005.

Signature of Receipt Clerk, ,

v ••••••••

,

••••••• : ' .

to

••••••

•••••••••

Appellate Authority E-mail address ..

Web-site .

Telephone No ..

'I

l12u G

\\l pc;.p CfZJ0.I r

II

. BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY . (UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2011 Debashish Nath

Appellant versus

ePIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

"

ORDER

1.

The appellant had filed an application dated May 23, 2011 under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The respondent, vide letter dated June 22, 2011, responded to the appellant. Aggrieved by the response of the respondent, the appellant has filed this appeal dated June 29, 2011 (received on July 04,2011).

2.

I have carefully examined the application, the response and the appeal

and find that the matter can be decided on merit based on the material available on record.

3.

The appellant had sought: "(a) How many notices issued against RIL

(Reliance Mukesh Bhirubhai Ambani Group of Companies) during the period of 1st January, 2007 to

so" April 2011 by SEBI with

regard to insider trading

of share transfer, (b) the volume of share involved in the said transaction and (c) The person/companies involved in the said transaction." The respondent denied the request for information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act on a plea that quasi judicial proceedings were in progress. I find that the information under Section 8(1)(h) can be denied, if it satisfies two conditions, , "

namely, (aD there is an investigation or prosecution, ongoing contemplated, .

\

and (b) the disckisure of information would hamper the process of said

investigation or prosecution. the respondent has not established these condition in its response. it only stated that the quasi judicial proceedings

were in progress. if the information relating to the quasi judicial authority, or its order, or activity, can be had only under the Act, statute, etc., under which such authority functions and not under the RTI Act, as held by Shri Sandeep

K. Vakharia Vs Customs Department (Order dated March 13, 2009), However, I do not think 'that the queries of the appellant related to the quasi

jUdicial authority, O'r its order, or activity. in Shagat Singh's case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held that the key for attracting section 8(1)(h) to any disclosure request is whether such disclosure would impede a current process of investigation.

4.

In view of the above, jf find that the response of the respondent is

incomplete and inadequate. I, therefore, remit the application dated May 23,

2011 to the respondent for denovo consideration, with 15 working days from the receipt of this order.

5.

the appeal is accordingly disposed of ,

PRASHANT SARAN

Place: Mumbai

APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Date: July 29, 2011

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE SOARD OF INDIA

." \

ANNEXURE A3

BY COURIER Central Public Information Officer Email: cpio_ho@sebLgov.in CPIO/AKS/JJ/AAO-1218-2011/26300

August 16,2011 Shri Debashish Nath,

6, 4 th Floor, Deval Chambers, Nanbhailane, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

Dear Sir, Sub: Compliance with' order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information (RTf) Act, 2005.

Please refer to order reference number AAO/1218/RTI/07/2011 dated

29.7.2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

In compliance with the directions of the Appellate Authority please find the reply below:

With reference to your queries at points 1, 2 and 3 you are informed that information regarding show cause notice (s) issued to third parties as part of enforcement proceedings contain allegations and tentative findings, which if revealed before the conclusion of proceedings in the form of final order, are most likely to

the commercial interest and competitive position of the

entities against whom the said notice(s) are issued. Further, the information \

sought regarding the allegation of insider trading, volume of shares involved and the persons/companies involved in the said transactions are the subject matter of the show cause notice, and consequently of the ongoing proceedings, and the final decisions on the matter has not yet been

\ 0

determined in the form of order. as quasi-judicial proceedings are currently in progress, the details sought under Points 1 to 3 would impede the process of investigation. and adversely affect the commercial interest and competitive position of the entities before culmination of the proceedings by way of order, and hence are exempted under Section 8(1 )(h) and 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act,

2005. the process, of investigation has not reached its logical conclusion and

disclosure of information at this stage would compromise the objectivity of decisions making. such disclosure may also harm the reputation and the

commercial confidence of the parties involveg in the matter as final order is yet to be passed by the quasi judicial authority,

Yours faithfully

Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma

I.

,

. \

\ J

ANNEXURE A-4 RELIANCE INDUSTRIES TRYING TO SETTLE

INSIDER-TRADING CASE AGAIN

MUMBAI:

India's

largest private sector firm, Reliance

Industries has

approached the Securities and Exchange Board of India for the third time, .

seeking an out-of-court settlement to charges of insider trading.

RIL has been trying to settle the case through plea bargaining or a consent order but its negotiations with the market regulator have not made any headway in the last-two years.

The company is testing the waters again, said a person close to the development.

Two proposals fro?'! RIL has been rejected by SEBI because it felt that the amount that the company was willing to pay was paltry. In a consent order, a company or individual accused of violating stock market regulations can end the proceedings by paying a so-called consent fee, without admitting or denying guilt.

But RIL and Sebi were not able to agree on the amount, resulting in the revival of penalty proceedings that had been kept in abeyance.

In the first consent offer, RIL offered to pay a penalty of 3 crore while on the secondjiccasion it offered to pay less than 10 crore as penalty, both , "

unacceptable to the regulator.

\

RIL's external spokesman declined to offer comments for the story.

ET was not able to ascertain the details of RIL's offer this time around.

According to legal experts the regulator is likely to maintain a cautious stand as Reliance has a large retail shareholder base.

Anil Ambani, the younger brother of RIL chairman Mukesh, and some of his associates paid 50 crore to Sebi late last year in a case concerning Reliance Infrastructure. That payment, the highest in the history of India's capital market, was

•

not a penalty because it was also arrived at through

the 'consent process in which the younger Ambani did not admit or deny guilt.

Rll-RPl case RIL held 75% stake in RPL while 5% stake was held by US oil giant Chevron and the balance by the public. Between November 1 and 6 of 2007, RIL reduced its stake in RPL. It reportedly created entities who acted as agents of RIL and sold RPL's shares in the futures segment. The sellers had the same addressees as some RIL group companies, according to previous news stories on the subject. The insider-trading allegation stems from the fact that there were two transactions: first in futures and then in cash.

The analysis behind the insider trading allegation described in Sebi's showcause notice is that the company -- which controlled the agents cealing on its behalf -- knew that it intended to sell shares in the cash segment when it transacted in the futures segment. This amounted to insider trading, it is alleged.

Reliance Petroleum; which was set up to build a refinery in Jamnagar, no longer h;s been merged with Reliance Industries. \

However, in previous statements to this paper, the company has strongly denied that its actionsamounted to insider trading. The profits generated by

!

its agents had

turned over to the

and accounted for in the

accounts for the }!.3ar ended March 31, 2008, it had said in these statements.

I/TRUE TYPED COPYII

,

.

ANNEXURE A-5 RAJ RAJARATNAM, HEDGE FUND BILLIONAIRE, GETS ii-YEAR SENTENCE FOR INSIDER TRADING

P,ublished: October 13 Raj Rajaratnam, the hedge fund billionaire at the center of one of the largest insider trading cases in history, was sentenced Thursday to 11 years in prison.

It was the longest prison term ever for insider trading, according to the Justice Department, and was the culmination of a years-long federal probe of

cheating in the stock market.

But it was also substantially less than what the prosecution had sought against the man it called "a billion-dollar force of deception and corruption on Wall Street."

The

54-year-old Rajaratnam, who headed Galleon Management, was

convicted in Mayan 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud for illegally using inside information to trade in stocks such as Goldman Sachs, Google, Hilton and Intel, The trading generated profits or avoided losses of $72 million, the government estimated.

The case pUlled back the curtain on illicit trafficking in corporate secrets that involved people at the highest echelons of the financial world and gave hedge funds a competitive edge. The 11-year sentence reflects a trend toward tougher treatment of insider-trading convicts, said former federal prosecutor •

ÂĽ

Robert W. Ray. Less

than a

decade ago, it would have been unusual for a defendant in

a

\

major insider trading case to get more than two years, Ray said. ,

Rajaratnam's crimes "reflect a virus in our business CUlture that needs to be eradicated," U.S. District Judge Richard J. Holwell said at the sentencing in New York.

"It is a sad conclqsion to what once seemed to be a glittering story," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a news release.

Bharara said he hOped the case served as a wake-up call.

"Privileged professionals do not get a free pass to pursue profit through COIT&:Jpt means," said. ;

Rajaratnam was ortfered

to forfeit $53.4 million and pay a fine of $10 million.

Out on $100 million bail, he is scheduled to report for prison on Nov. 28.

The Justice Department opposed allowing Rajaratnam to stay out of prison while he appeals, saying he might flee to his native Sri Lanka or some other country. He "would have access to tens of mil/ions of dol/ars by the mere touch of a keystroke," the government said in a court filing.

Rajaratnam

will appeal his conviction, Kathryn Holmes Johnson, a

spokeswoman for his legal team, said bye-mail.

The Associated Press reported from New York that defense lawyers asked that Rajaratnam be allowed to go to the medical facility at the Butner Federal Correctional Complex in North Carolina, where Bernard Madoff ;s serving his 150-year sentence for running a Ponzi scheme that cheated thousands of people out of bitlions of dollars.

Though Rajaratnam did not testify at his trial, the prosecution made extensive use of wiretaps of his conversations with associates. ..

According to the government, Rajaratnam gathered inside information about pending corporate deals' and earnings announcessents from an array of tipsters, including a Goldman Sachs board member. a senior partner at the •

I

W

consulting. firm McKinsey & Co. and an insider at the Moody's credit rating =s.

;

agency.

\

In'RUE TYPED COPY!!

.....

-.'.

'r'" .......

. iJ1

I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

' , e':

I.A. NO.

OF 2011 IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 392 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF:Debashish Nath s.

I

Applicant

-,

AND IN THE MATTER S. Krishnaswamy & Drs

-

Petitioners

i

Versus Respondents

Ministry of Finance & Ors

VAKALA TNAMA I Debashish Nath 5/0 ,aged about 32 years the applicant in the above impleadment application, do hereby appoint and retain on behalf of all the MR. R.GOPALAKRISHNAN. Advocate, Supreme Court to act and appear for me/us in the above Interlocutory Application, Petition, Appeal!

AffidaviV Counter Affidavit and on my/our behalf, to conduct and prosecute/defend the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of any application connected with the same or any Decree or order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and application for Review, and to file and obtain return of documents, and deposit ang any money on my/our behalf in the said I.A., Petition, Appeal and in application for Review, and to represent me/us, and to take all necessary steps on my/our behalf in the above matter. If\Ne agree to pay his fees and out of pocket expenses, agree to ratify a/l acts done by the aforesaid advocate in pursuance of this authority.

ACCEPTE*ERTIFIED,' ef /b.IC .

Dated this the

-<..oU->

day of

J

APPLICANT (5)

ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT

R. GPPAl.A

*fytJr !rJ..';.

'l-ry?

Ny路 Debt-l.shish MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To, ;rhe Registrar, Supreme Court, N.D..

Sir,

Kindly enterJ1lY '":'..

in the above mentioned Petition/Application made

'

on behalf of the Petitioner/Applicant.

'

\

Yours faithfully,

New Delhi

Date: (R.GOPALAKRISHNAN) Advocate for the applicantls 104, lawyers,Chambers, Supreme Court of India, NAWn.. 1h ;