Madhav Stock Vision Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. & ... vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 252 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will stay the operation of a SEBI debarment order pending final hearing where the appellant's livelihood and that of dependants is at stake and the appellant has already deposited the full disgorgement and penalty amounts, notwithstanding that the appellant's counsel does not contest the admission of the underlying misconduct.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date : 10.08.2026 Appeal No. 252 of 2026 [Along with Misc. Application No. 742 of 2026] Madhav Stock Vision Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ...Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent Mr. Kunal Katariya, Advocate with Mr. Vineet Jadhav, Advocate i/b Ms. Ashmita Goradia, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sumit Rai with Mr. Ishan Agrawal, Ms. Rasika Ghate, Mr. Kush Khandelwal, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Mr. Prakshal Jain and Ms. Asmita Pandey, Advocates i/b Nyaayam Associates for the Respondent. ORDER: Admit. 2. The application for exemption is allowed. Misc. Application No. 742 of 2026 is disposed of. 3. Respondent is granted six weeks to file a reply and three weeks, thereafter, to the appellant to file rejoinder. 4. Mr. Kunal Katariya, learned Advocate for the appellant prayed for stay of debarment. He submitted that the Noticee No. 1 is a stock broker and proprietary trader. Noticee No. 4 used to be a trader with Noticee No. 1. The allegation is that Noticee Nos. 2 and 3 have carried the information and provided to Noticee No. 4, based on which, front running trades were carried out in appellant's account.
He submitted 2 that there are no prior cases against the appellant, the disgorgement amount of Rs.2.5 Crore with interest was Rs.2.93 Crore and the same has been deposited with the SEBI. 5. He further submitted that 40 families are dependent upon the appellant and if the debarment is not stayed, it shall affect the livelihood of so many families. 6. In reply, Mr. Sumit Rai, learned Advocate for the SEBI submitted that front running has been admitted by the appellant. Therefore, the prayer for stay of debarment is untenable. 7. Keeping in view of the fact that 40 families are involved and appellant has deposited full disgorgement and penalty amounts, in our view, pending final hearing, appellant's prayer for stay merits consideration. 8. Mr. Katariya submitted that appellant has no objection for SEBI to appropriate the sum of Rs.2.93 Crore and the penalty of Rs.30 Lakh deposited by the appellant. He submitted that should there be any short fall, appellant undertakes to make good the same within two weeks of such intimation. 9. Call on 30.10.2026. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 10.08.2026 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR BHALBAR msb BHALBAR Date: 2026.08.11 13:48:45 +05'30'
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free