Chennai Financial Markets & ... vs Sebi

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 CORAM: Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member Appeal No.703 of 2024 Chennai Financial Markets & Accountability GA Florentine No.43, 1st Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600020. ...Appellant (By Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj, Advocate with Ms. Rutu V. Pawar, Advocate i/b. Pragnya Legal for the Appellant.) 1. Securities and Exchange Board of India Plot No.C4/A, G-Block, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051. 2. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.(NSE) Exchange Plaza, C-1, Block G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051. 3. Mr. Ravi Narain (Former MD & CEO of NSE) B3, Diwanshree Apartments, 30 Firoz Shah Road, New Delhi - 110001. 2 4. Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna (Former MD & CEO of NSE) 201, Laxmi Habitat, 7th Cross Road, Chembur, Mumbai - 400071. 5. Mr. Subramaniam Anand (Former Chief Strategic & Group Operating Officer of NSE) 2/14, Vishranti Saktimaya II Main Road, Seethamal Extension, Teynampet, Chennai - 600018. 6. Mr. Ravi Apte (Former CTO of NSE) 602, Cappela Building Lane No.2, 72/73, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune - 411007. 7. Mr. Umesh Jain (Former CTO of NSE) 101, Lodha Bellissimo, N.M.

Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400011. 8. Mr. Mahesh Soparkar (Head of PSM Team) NEAT House, Off. Gokhale Road, Dadar West, Mumbai - 400028. 9. Mr. Deviprasad Singh Flat No.101, Building No.EMP12, Juipter CHS, Thakur Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. ...Respondents (By Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Manish Chhangani, Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Agrawal, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent-SEBI.) 3 (Mr. Abishek Venkatraman, Advocate with Ms. Anusha Jegadeesh, Mr. Prabhav Shroff, Mr. Harshit Jaiswal, and Ms. Isha Patil, Advocates i/b. AZB & Partners for the Respondent No.2.) (Mr. Robin Shah, Advocate i/b. Bodhi Legal for the Respondent No.3.) (Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, Advocate with Mr. Pranav Kethineni, Advocate i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI ACT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2024 PASSED BY THE SEBI. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON APRIL 24, 2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE TRIBUNAL MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Per: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer This appeal is directed against order dated September 13, 2024 passed by WTM1, SEBI2 with following prayers3 is: Whole Time Member 2 Securities and Exchange Board of India: Respondent No-01 3 Para VIII at page 33 of memorandum of appeal 4 (b) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to appoint or direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint an independent third party /committee to re-consider the angle of connivance and collusion of OPG and its directors with any employee/officials of NSE.

(C) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to assist an independent third party/committee by providing all the material evidence/ objective facts on record in this case as available from Forensic Reports and investigation conducted so far, to re-consider the charge of connivance and collusion of OPG and its directors with any employee/officials of NSE. (d) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent No. I to seek information from CBI which is investigating the NSE colocation matter and has filed charge sheets against ex- NSE senior officials to consider and scrutinize the same to re- consider the charge of connivance and collusion of OPG and its directors with any employee/officials of NSE. (e) for costs of and incidental to this Appeal to be paid by the Respondents to the Appellant; and, (f) for such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. We have heard Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj, learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Vishal kanade, learned Advocate for the SEBI, Mr. Abhishek Venkatraman, learned Advocate for respondent No.2, Mr. Robin Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No.3, Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9. None appeared for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7. 3. Brief facts of the case are: d) Pursuant thereto, SEBI issued a fresh SCN7 on May 17, 2023 and passed the impugned order dated September 13, 2024, disposing the proceedings against NSE and its employees without any directions, while simultaneously enhancing the penalty against OPG to ₹ 85.25 crores and holding it guilty under the PFUTP Regulations.

This order has been challenged by OPG in this Tribunal and it is pending consideration. e) According to the appellant, out of four issues, SEBI has considered only the issue pertaining to the charge of connivance and collusion of OPG and its directors. The remaining three issues have not been considered. 4. SEBI has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal. Mr. Kanade for SEBI submitted that appellant has no locus standi. Further, this appeal is in the nature of a 'Public Interest Litigation' and this Tribunal has no 7 Show Cause Notice 7 jurisdiction to entertain a PIL8. The other respondents also argued on similar lines. Hence, we have considered the maintainability of this appeal as a preliminary issue. 5. Mr. Natraj, learned Advocate for appellant submitted that the impugned order has not dealt with all the issues as directed by this Tribunal. 6. He submitted that the appellant falls within the definition of 'any person aggrieved' occurring in Section 15T of the SEBI Act and that this Tribunal can exercise powers under Rule 21 of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2000 to secure the ends of justice.

7. In reply, Mr. Kanade argued that the appellant has not suffered any legal injury nor has any right of the appellant been affected by the impugned order. Therefore, appellant is not a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 15T of the SEBI Act. 8. We have carefully considered rival submissions. 9. Section 15T of the SEBI Act provides that 'any person aggrieved' by an order of the Board may prefer an appeal before this Tribunal. In NSE v. SEBI9, this Tribunal had an occasion to examine the meaning of a 'person aggrieved'. We may record that in NSE v. SEBI, NSE had challenged SEBI's order in 8 Public Interest Litigation 9 Appeal No.333 of 2019 and connected appeals decided on 23.01.2023 by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. co-location case. One Mr. A Kumar had also filed Appeal No.433 of 2019 (A Kumar v. SEBI) challenging the very same order impugned by NSE. While considering the appeals this Tribunal has held thus: 10. It is stated in the appellant's written submission that appellant has filed Writ Petition No.28493 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras with a prayer inter alia to constitute a special investigation team to investigate the NSE co-location scam.

11. The appellant's claims to be a society with an objective to address public concerns and provide assistance in the area of banking, insurance, etc. Admittedly, the appellant is neither an investor nor suffered any loss. There is no lis between appellant and NSE. This Tribunal is an appellate authority to consider the appeal under Section 15T of the SEBI Act. In an identical 10 situation, in the case of Mr. A Kumar, this Tribunal has already held that he was not an aggrieved party. Appellant's case is identical in nature. We are in respectful agreement with the opinion expressed in NSE v. SEBI, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinabove. 12. In our considered opinion, appellant is not an 'aggrieved person', therefore, this appeal is not maintainable under Section 15T of the SEBI Act. 13. Learned Advocate for the appellant has also contended that this Tribunal may exercise power under Rule 21 of the SAT, Rules. The said rule reads as follows: 14. In our considered view, the above rule can be pressed into service by this Tribunal to give effect to the order of this Tribunal or to prevent abuse of Tribunal's process or to secure ends of justice.

By the earlier order, this Tribunal had remanded the matter to SEBI for fresh consideration. SEBI is the market Regulator under the SEBI Act and it has passed a fresh order. Therefore, there is no contingency to exercise this Tribunal's power under Rule 21 of the Rules. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that appellant is not an aggrieved person under Section 15T nor is there any 11 contingency to exercise Rule 21 of the Rules. Hence, this appeal is not maintainable and hereby dismissed. 16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 17. No Costs. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member RAJALA Digitally signed 18.06.2026 by RAJALAKSHMI KSHMI HDate: