Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteThe Bombay High Court set aside on July 8, 2026, a special court’s order directing an FIR against former SEBI chair Madhabi Puri Buch and five others in a case tied to Cals Refineries’ 1994 Bombay Stock Exchange listing. The High Court’s reported reasons included that the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence or specify concrete wrongdoing by the named SEBI officials. The earlier FIR direction was an order to investigate—not a finding that anyone was guilty.
What happened to the FIR order?
The procedural sequence changed substantially after the initial order. A special Mumbai ACB court directed registration of an FIR on March 1, 2025; the Bombay High Court stayed that direction three days later and set it aside on July 8, 2026.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Rights of Indians and Tribes | $30.93 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
American Indian Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary (American Casebook Series) | $313.04 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
American Indian Law: Native Nations and the Federal System | $246.41 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
American Indian Law in a Nutshell | $55.97 | Buy on Amazon |
| Date | Procedural stage | What it meant |
|---|---|---|
| March 1, 2025 | Special ACB court directed an FIR and investigation. | The court treated the complaint as disclosing a cognizable offence and directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate. It was not a conviction. (The Indian Express; SEBI statement) |
| March 4, 2025 | Bombay High Court stayed the direction. | Justice Shivkumar Dige said the order appeared to have been passed mechanically without attributing specific roles to all applicants. (The Indian Express) |
| July 8, 2026 | Bombay High Court set aside the FIR-direction order. | According to Moneycontrol’s report, the High Court found no cognizable offence disclosed and no concrete act of wrongdoing specified; it also noted that the SEBI applicants joined years after the 1994 listing. (Moneycontrol) |
The July 2026 account here is based on Moneycontrol’s report of the decision; the full text of the judgment is not reproduced in that report. The reported disposition is that the special-court FIR direction was set aside.
What did the complaint allege?
Journalist Sapan Srivastava’s complaint concerned Cals Refineries’ listing on the Bombay Stock Exchange in 1994. It alleged that SEBI permitted the listing despite noncompliance with applicable requirements and that regulatory failures enabled market manipulation and corporate fraud. Those are the complainant’s allegations, not established findings in the reported proceedings. (The Indian Express; SEBI statement)
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
Who was named?
The complaint named six people:
- Madhabi Puri Buch, former SEBI chair
- Ashwani Bhatia, SEBI whole-time member
- Ananth Narayan G, SEBI whole-time member
- Kamlesh Chandra Varshney, SEBI whole-time member
- Pramod Agarwal, BSE official
- Sundararaman Ramamurthy, BSE official
The special court’s direction called for the ACB to register an FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the SEBI Act and other applicable laws. (The Indian Express)
Why did the High Court set aside the direction?
Moneycontrol reported that the High Court found the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence or identify concrete acts of wrongdoing by the named SEBI officials. It also reported a chronology concern: Cals Refineries was listed in 1994, while the SEBI applicants joined in 2022 and 2023. Because the full judgment text is not available in the cited account, these points should be understood as the report’s description of the court’s reasoning, not as a substitute for the judgment. (Moneycontrol)
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What did SEBI say in 2025?
After the special-court order, SEBI said it would take legal steps to challenge it. The regulator said the officials had not held their roles at the time relevant to the complaint and that SEBI had not been given an opportunity to place facts on record before the order was made. Those were SEBI’s stated objections at the time. (SEBI statement)
Quick Recap
Best Value
What this means—and does not mean
- The 2025 special-court order directed an investigation; it did not establish that Buch or the other named people committed fraud.
- The High Court first stayed that order and later set it aside, according to the reported July 2026 decision.
- The complaint’s claims about listing violations, market manipulation and corporate fraud remain allegations in the materials reported here; they should not be presented as proven facts.
- The reported High Court decision addresses whether the complaint justified the FIR direction. The available account does not establish broader conclusions about Cals Refineries or other proceedings.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →
