Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Omprakash Basantlal Goenka & Others vs Adjudicating Officer, Securities And ...

Securities Appellate Tribunal21 August 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may grant a stay of recovery of a penalty pending appeal on condition that the appellant deposits a specified percentage of the penalty amount, with the deposit to be held by the regulator in an interest-bearing account; in fixing that percentage, the Tribunal may take into account the age of the appellant, with the stay for the appellant who is a senior citizen being conditioned on deposit of 25% of the penalty, and the court declining to adopt the 50% deposit proposed by the respondent.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date: 21.08.2026 Appeal No. 259 of 2026 Omprakash Basantlal Goenka & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India ... Respondent Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. K. C. Jacob, Mr. Shourya Tanay, Ms. Mridula Bhat, Advocates i/b Economic Laws Practice for the Appellants. Ms. Prachi Pandya, Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Shah, Mr. Abhishek Nair, Ms. Sayali Kshirsagar, Advocates i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent. ORDER : 1. Admit. 2. Respondent is allowed six weeks to file reply. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter. 3. Mr. Vinay Chauhan, learned advocate for the appellants seeks an order in like terms as in Appeal No. 460 of 2025, Omprakash Basantlal Goekna vs. SEBI, wherein stay of recovery has been ordered subject to deposit of 25% of the penalty amount for the reasons recorded therein. 4. Ms. Prachi Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that approximately about Rs.8,000 Crores has to be recovered. Keeping in view the gravity of the case, the appellant may be directed to deposit of 50% of the penalty amount as condition to grant stay. 5. The Appellant No. 1, Omprakash Basantlal Goenka is 80 years old. After carefully considering the matter, we had directed deposit of 25% of penalty in Appeal No. 460 of 2025. Following the same, we direct stay of recovery subject to deposit of 25% of penalty amount. 6. Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the other appellants are not senior citizens. Hence, the benefit of order in Appeal No.460 of 2025 may not be extended. Mr. Chauhan submitted that all assets of the appellants have been attached. Hence, in our view, in the facts of this case, directing the appellants to deposit 25% of penalty is just and appropriate. 7. There shall be stay of recovery subject to deposit of 25% of the penalty amount within four weeks from today. SEBI shall place the said amount in an interest bearing account. 8. Call on 17.11.2026. Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member 21.08.2026 MRS Digitally signed by MRS PRAMILA VPM PRAMILA Date: 2026.08.24 11:14:37 +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