Reliance Infrastructure Ltd on Sunday said it has approached the market regulator, SEBI, and the stock exchanges, NSE and BSE, seeking a review of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)-linked surveillance framework that has placed its shares under additional trading restrictions.
“Reliance Infrastructure Limited has submitted a formal representation to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), National Stock Exchange (NSE), and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), seeking a review of the surveillance framework linked to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),” Reliance Infrastructure said in its exchange filing.
In a media release disclosed to stock exchanges, the company said it has sought a review of the Additional Surveillance Measure (ASM) framework, arguing that the current “once-a-week trading” restriction, with a narrow ±5% price band, is adversely affecting more than 7 lakh retail public shareholders.
Reliance Infrastructure said the existing trading mechanism leads to mechanical and predictable price movements, which, according to the company, do not reflect underlying business fundamentals or long-term value creation potential. The company added that its shares are otherwise widely traded with sustained investor participation and liquidity.
The company said the continuation of such trading curbs disproportionately harms retail shareholders, particularly during lower-circuit phases when investors are unable to exit at reasonable market prices and the value of holdings erodes by a near-fixed percentage each week.
Reliance Infrastructure has proposed a calibrated regulatory approach that retains risk-mitigation measures such as gross settlement, 100% margin requirements, additional surveillance deposits and price-band safeguards, while allowing more efficient price discovery. It has suggested alternatives including a periodic call-auction mechanism or a wider and graded price band.
The company also pointed out that the ASM framework was triggered despite the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal staying both the insolvency admission order and the corporate insolvency resolution process against it, adding that its board continues to manage operations in the normal course.
