Sebi on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking stay on the sectoral tribunal’s order that allowed audit firm Price Waterhouse to cross-examine the accused in the Rs 7,000-crore Satyam Computer Services scam, including Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju.
The Securities Appellate Tribunal in June last year had asked Sebi to allow Price Waterhouse, the scam-tainted company’s external auditor, to cross-examine Ramalinga Raju, his brother and managing director B Rama Raju, and former CFO Vadlamani Srinivas. It also asked Sebi to furnish copies of their statements to Price Waterhouse, if necessary.
A bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia asked Attorney General GE Vahanvati and counsel Pratap Venugopal, appearing for Sebi, to apprise the court of the scope of enquiry into the matter under the Sebi Act, and the consequences of the criminal prosecution initiated by CBI and the proceedings initiated by ICAI. Such clarity is required so that no confusion is created resulting in the accused getting away, it said.
Sebi had relied on the statements of Raju and the other accused to issue show-cause notices to Price Waterhouse asking them why they should not be debarred from carrying
The Securities Appellate Tribunal in June last year had asked Sebi to allow Price Waterhouse, the scam-tainted company’s external auditor, to cross-examine Ramalinga Raju, his brother and managing director B Rama Raju, and former CFO Vadlamani Srinivas. It also asked Sebi to furnish copies of their statements to Price Waterhouse, if necessary.
A bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia asked Attorney General GE Vahanvati and counsel Pratap Venugopal, appearing for Sebi, to apprise the court of the scope of enquiry into the matter under the Sebi Act, and the consequences of the criminal prosecution initiated by CBI and the proceedings initiated by ICAI. Such clarity is required so that no confusion is created resulting in the accused getting away, it said.
Sebi had relied on the statements of Raju and the other accused to issue show-cause notices to Price Waterhouse asking them why they should not be debarred from carrying
No comments:
Post a Comment