Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mr. Sanjay Chandra vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal11 June 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a proceeding that may result in a monetary penalty and other serious directions is decided against persons who were not shown to have been served with the show cause notice, the hearing notice, or the impugned order, and the record discloses no service on them, the adjudicating order cannot stand against those persons without their being afforded an opportunity to put forward their defence before the regulator; the defect is one of natural justice, and the order is set aside as against them so that they may be heard.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 CORAM : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member Appeal No. 83 of 2026 And Misc. Application No. 273 of 2026 And Misc. Application No. 274 of 2026 Between Mr. Sanjay Chandra Q 9, 2nd Floor, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi - 110 016. .... Appellant By Mr. Kunal Kataria, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Dhamnaskar, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Ms. Disha Shah, Advocates for the Appellant. And Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), .... Respondent Mumbai - 400 051. By Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Ms. Khushbu Chhajed, Ms. Khushbu Trivedi, Mr. Pulkit Awasthi, Advocates i/b MDP Legal for Respondent. With Appeal No. 84 of 2026 And Misc. Application No. 275 of 2026 And Misc. Application No. 276 of 2026 2 Between Mr. Ajay Chandra 18/9, Chinar Drive, DLF Farms, Chattarpur, New Delhi - 110 074. .... Appellant By Mr. Kunal Kataria, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Dhamnaskar, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Ms. Disha Shah, Advocates for the Appellant.

And Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. .... Respondent By Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Ms. Khushbu Chhajed, Ms. Khushbu Trivedi, Mr. Pulkit Awasthi, Advocates i/b MDP Legal for Respondent. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 29, 2023 (EX-A) PASSED BY CGM1, SEBI. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026, THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Per : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral) These two appeals are directed against the order dated December 29, 2023 passed by CGM imposing penalty, debarring the appellants from accessing the securities 1 Chief General Manager 3 market and to wind up the Venture Capital Fund and to refund money to the investors. 2. There is delay of 740 days in filing this appeal. SEBI has filed common reply opposing the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We have heard Mr. Kunal Katariya, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Sumit Rai, learned advocate for the respondent.

4. Brief facts of the case are appellants are siblings and directors of Unitech Advisors (India) Private Limited which was subsequently, renamed as Auram Asset Management Private Limited. The instant proceedings were initiated by the SEBI by issuing a show cause notice dated March 10, 2023 and the proceedings were concluded with the passing of the impugned order. 5. Mr. Kunal Katariya, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that during the entire period of instant proceedings, appellants were in jail. They did not have any knowledge of the proceedings. According to him, SEBI made inquiries with the jail authorities and jail authorities conveyed to the SEBI that Ajay Chandra one of the appellant was in Taloja Central Prison. The show cause notice was served upon the jail authorities on November 9, 2023. There is no proof of service of show cause notice, hearing notice or the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The appellants came to know about the impugned order only after released from the jail. One of the appellant, Sanjay Chandra had received an email from SEBI stating that the impugned order had been passed.

Thereafter, the appellants took necessary action and filed the instant appeals in March 2026. With the submissions he prayed for condoning the delay and considering the appeals on merits. 6. In reply, Shri Sumit Rai, learned advocate for the SEBI submitted that the SEBI, as a statutory regulatory has taken every steps to ensure that the appellants were served. After receiving information from the jail authorities, Ajay Chandra was served show cause notice through jail authorities. In the meanwhile, the hearing notice was also served on his father. Thus, the SEBI has taken all steps to serve to the appellants. The appellants were directors in the company, but not taken any action to represent themselves before the adjudication authority. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the records. 8. Undisputed facts of the case are, appellants were in jail between 31.03.2017 to 06.06.2024. Though they were being released on interim bail in between, suffice to note that whilst the proceedings were pending between 10.03.2023 and 29.12.2023, appellants were in jail. Along with its reply, SEBI has annexed a communication received from the Byculla District Prison dated 05.09.2023 stating that Ajay Chandra was logged in Taloja Central Jail.

The show cause notice was served upon the jail authorities on November 9, 2023 through the prison authorities. As submitted by Mr. Rai the hearing notice was served on November 8, 2023 on appellant's father. 9. We may record that the show cause notice was served subsequent to the hearing notice. Both the show cause 5 notice and hearing notice pertained to the Ajay Chandra, as such the other appellant was not served with either the said show cause notice or the hearing notice. There is no material on record which shows that appellants were served with the impugned order. 10. The penalty imposed in the instant case is Rs. 1.20 Crores payable jointly and severally. In addition, there is direction debarring the appellants from accessing the securities market, to wind up the fund and to refund the money to the investors. In these facts, in our considered view, appellants must be granted an opportunity to place their defense before the regulator. Accordingly, having considered the matter on both delay and merits, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside qua the appellants. Appellants shall appear before SEBI on June 29, 2026 without waiting for any further notice and take further directions from SEBI.

11. Appeals stands disposed of in above terms. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No costs. Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 11.06.2026 MRS Digitally signed by MRS PRAMILA VPM PRAMILA Date: 2026.06.15 16:49:30 +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