Vivid Solare Energy Pvt. Ltd vs Sebi

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 CORAM : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member Appeal No. 166 of 2026 And Misc. Application No. 405 of 2026 And Misc. Application No. 480 of 2026 Between Vivid Solaire Energy Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 3, 4 & 5, Sixth Floor, Fountainhead Tower - 2, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India - 411 014. .... Appellant By Ms. Varuna Bhanrale, Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Shahid Khan, Advocate 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 the Respondent. THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 2 18, 2025 (EX-A) PASSED BY AO, PANEL OF RECOVERY OFFICERS. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026, THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Per : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by order dated December 18, 2025 passed by the panel of recovery officers associated with the Justice R. M. Lodha Committee.

2. We have heard Ms. Varuna Bhanrale, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sumit Rai, learned advocate for the respondent -SEBI. 3. Brief facts of the case are: a company named PACL collected huge sums of money under the collective investment scheme. SEBI passed an order in 2014 against PACL. SEBI's order was challenged before this Tribunal by filing an appeal and the same is stood dismissed. PACL challenged this Tribunal's order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court constituted Justice Lodha Committee to hear and pass orders with regard to individual claims of those persons whose properties were attached and sought to be sold or sold for recovery of public money. To assist the committee, Mr. R. S. Virk, a District Judge was appointed. He was hearing the objections and passing orders. Those orders were being 3 considered as recommendations for further consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. On August 8, 2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has passed an order directing that from and after that date, all objections shall be filed before the committee itself.

By then, the term of appointment of Mr. R. S. Virk came to an end and it was not extended further. Pursuant to order dated August 8, 2024, SEBI issued a public notice on November 25, 2024 inviting objections. It was made clear in the said notice that any person aggrieved by rejection of his claim could approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court India by way of an appropriate application in Civil Appeal No. 13301 of 2025. 5. Undisputed facts of this case are: on March 5, 2025, appellant herein filed objection with respect to certain properties. The same has been considered and rejected by the panel of recovery officers. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 6. SEBI has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal. 7. Mr. Sumit Rai, learned advocate for the SEBI submitted that appellant's objection must be construed as an objection filed pursuant to public notice dated August 8, 2024 and it has been disposed of by the panel of recovery officers. The order is passed on the letterhead of the committee which implies that it was the committee's order.

Therefore, the 4 said order is appealable only before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the order dated February 19, 2026 makes it clear: 10. Admitted position is, appellant has filed objections with regard to certain properties situated in Tamilnadu. According to the appellant, these properties are listed in the list of properties of PACL. 11. The objection was filed on March 5, 2025 prior to the order dated February 19, 2026. Therefore, we are persuaded to accept Mr. Rai's submission that the objection must be construed as one filed in response to the public notice dated November 25, 2024. Paragraph No. 5 of that notice reads as under: 12. The above direction is unambiguous. If any person is aggrieved by the orders passed pursuant to the objections filed by them, the remedy is as described in the paragraph No. 5 extracted above. 13. In the result, the objection raised by the SEBI is sustained. Consequently, we hold that this appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of.

No costs. Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 23.06.2026 MRS Digitally signed by MRS PRAMILA PTM PRAMILA Date: 2026.07.01 11:21:41 +05'30'