Mr. Chenthil R. Iyar vs Sebi

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 CORAM: Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member Appeal No.136 of 2026 Mr. Chenthil R Iyer Flat No.10, Prestige Serine, Ramnagar Colony, NDA Rd. Bavdhan, Pune Maharashtra-400021. .....Appellant (By Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Practicing Company Secretary with Mr. Ali Asgar Tambawala Practicing Company Secretary for the Appellant.) Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan BKC, Plot No.C4-A, 'G' Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra. .....Respondent (By Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate i/b. Agama Law Associates for the Respondent.) 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 20, 2026 PASSED BY THE AO, SEBI. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON MAY 8, 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 February 20, 2026, passed by the AO1, SEBI2 imposing a penalty of ₹5 Lakh on the appellant under Section 15EB of the SEBI Act, 19923 for violation of Regulations 7(1)(a) and 7(2) of the SEBI (IA) Regulations, 20134. 2. Brief facts of the case are: Adjudicating Officer 2 Securities and Exchange Board of India 3 Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 4 SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 3 b) SEBI's examination revealed that appellant's NISM5 certificate had also expired on April 1, 2022 and the appellant had continued providing the investment advisory services and collecting fees. c) Accordingly, an SCN6 dated January 29, 2026 was issued. Appellant filed his reply and did not wish to avail personal hearing. SEBI, after considering his reply, has passed the impugned order. 3. We have heard Mr. Abhishek Mishra, PCS for the appellant and Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, learned Advocate for the SEBI. 4. Mr. Mishra for the appellant submitted that non-renewal of NISM certificate and RIA7 license was not deliberate.

It occurred due to 'slip of mind'. In 2018, appellant had obtained good percentile in NISM certification. During COVID-19, appellant shifted to Chennai and he was busy taking care of his sick father, who ultimately passed away in 2023. Appellant missed appearing for NISM certification examination due to bona fide reasons. Mere absence of certificate for 3 years does not make him ineligible to provide advisory services. 5. He further submitted that the violation of IA Regulations was procedural or technical in nature, which occurred due to administrative oversight and there is no fraudulent intention to 5 National Institute of Securities Market 6 Show Cause Notice 7 Registered Investment Adviser 4 deceit the clients. He prayed that this Tribunal may take a lenient view and allow this appeal with a warning. He relied on Religare Securities Limited v. SEBI8, Piramal Enterprises Limited v. SEBI9 and earlier adjudication orders of SEBI in the matter of Gaurav Sarda10 and Options King Research Analyst-Proprietor Sunil Suklal Pawar11. 6. In reply, Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey for SEBI submitted that as a registered adviser, appellant is duty bound to have a valid NISM certificate.

Appellant has not obtained the NISM certificate nor renewed RIA12 certificate. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 8. Admitted position is, appellant has not obtained NISM certification and not renewed his investment advisory registration. IA Regulations requires a registered investment adviser to have a valid NISM certificate. The relevant provision reads thus: 9. The impugned order also records that during the course of examination proceedings, appellant was specifically informed about NISM certification, yet, appellant failed to obtain one. 10. It is further recorded in the impugned order that appellant collected a sum of ₹46,86,601, whilst he did not possess a valid registration. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order imposing a penalty of ₹5 Lakhs. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 12. No costs. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member RAJALA Digitally by signed 15.06.2026 KSHMI RAJALAKSHMI NAIR H Date: 2026.06.15 RHN H NAIR 15:14:00 +05'30'