Shree Harjeet Singh Anand vs SEBI & Another

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT MUMBAI

ND
DATED THIS THE 02 DAY OF JULY, 2026

CORAM: Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member


Appeal No.476 of 2024
[Along with Misc. Application
Nos.1244 and 771 of 2024]



Mr. Harjeet Singh Anand
Hemkund Banglows,
nd
2 Gandhi Gram Road,
Golden Acres, Juhu Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai-400049.








…Appellant

(By Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Parvez R. Shaikh,
Advocate for the Appellant . )


1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.

2. Bhartiya Global Infomedia Limited
nd
44, Backrey Portion, 2 Floor
Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-100001.









…Respondents

2

(By Mr. J. P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suraj Chaudhary, Ms.
Nidhi Singh, Mr. Nishin Shrikhande and Ms. Komal Shah,
Advocates i/b. Vidhii Partners for the Respondent No.1.)

(Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Manoj Raut, Advocate for
the Respondent No.2.)


With
Appeal No.477 of 2024
[Along with Misc. Application No.772
of 2024]


Mrs. Arti Bhatia
nd
G-222, 2 Floor,
Sector-44, Noida-201301.





…Appellant

(By Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Parvez R. Shaikh,
Advocate for the Appellant . )

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.

2. Bhartiya Global Infomedia Limited
nd
44, Backrey Portion, 2 Floor
Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-100001.









…Respondent
(By Mr. J. P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suraj Chaudhary, Ms.
Nidhi Singh, Mr. Nishin Shrikhande and Ms. Komal Shah,
Advocates i/b. Vidhii Partners for the Respondent No.1.)

(Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Manoj Raut, Advocate for
the Respondent No.2.)

3

With
Appeal No.478 of 2024
[Along with Misc. Application No.774,
775 and 847 of 2024]



Mr. Sanjiv Kapoor
Flat No.8093, Olive Building,
Parx Laureate GH-01, 02, 03,
Sector 108, Noida, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201304.









…Appellant

(By Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Parvez R. Shaikh,
Advocate for the Appellant . )


1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.

2. Bhartiya Global Infomedia Limited
nd
44, Backrey Portion, 2 Floor,
Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-100001.










…Respondent
(By Mr. J. P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suraj Chaudhary, Ms.
Nidhi Singh, Mr. Nishin Shrikhande and Ms. Komal Shah,
Advocates i/b. Vidhii Partners for the Respondent No.1.)

(Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Manoj Raut, Advocate for
the Respondent No.2.)


THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI ACT
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED APRIL 17, 2014 PASSED BY
THE AO, SEBI.

4

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON APRIL 22, 2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE TRIBUNAL MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Per: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

These three appeals are directed against order dated
1 2
17.04.2014, passed by AO , SEBI imposing a penalty of
₹6 Crore on Bharatiya Global Infomedia Ltd. (‘Bharatiya
Global/Company’ for short) for violation of Securities laws.

2. Appeal No.476 of 2024 is filed by Mr. Harjeet Singh
Anand; Appeal No.477 of 2024 is filed by Mrs. Arti Bhatia; and
Appeal No.478 of 2024 is filed by Mr. Sanjay Kapoor.

3. We have heard Mr. Vinay Chauhan, learned Advocate for
the appellants. Mr. J. P. Sen, learned Senior Advocate for the
SEBI (respondent No.1) and Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned
Advocate for the Company, Bharatiya Global (respondent No.2).





1
Adjudicating Officer
2
Securities and Exchange Board of India

5

4. Brief facts of the case are:
3
a) During July 2011, Bharatiya Global came out with an IPO .
SEBI conducted an investigation based on price
fluctuations in Company’s scrip, which revealed that the
Company had supressed material facts in the offer
document and IPO proceeds were transferred to various
entities.

b) On 28.12.2011, SEBI passed an ex parte ad interim order
debarring the Company from raising further capital and
debarred its Directors from accessing the securities
market.

4 5
c) The WTM , SEBI vide order dated 07.05.2013, revoked
the ex parte ad interim order and exonerated the
appellants on the ground that they were Independent/Non-
Executive Directors and the investigation did not establish
their role in the fraud.

6
d) On 06.05.2013, SEBI issued an SCN to the Company and
7
three others alleging violation of Securities laws . After

3
Initial Public Offering
4
Whole Time Member
5
Dated 07.05.2013
6
Show Cause Notice
7
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; SEBI (Prohibition of
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003; and SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure
Requirements) Regulations, 2009.

6

8
adjudication, the impugned order was passed against the
Company and three others. Feeling aggrieved, the
9
Company and others filed an appeal in this Tribunal. This
Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.2019, dismissed the
appeal and upheld SEBI’s order. On appeal, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India vide order dated 16.09.2019
10
dismissed the appeal . Subsequently, a review
11
application was filed in this Tribunal and the same was
12
also dismissed . The Company and others challenged the
said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal Nos.1379-1380 of 2022. The said appeals
stood dismissed by order dated 04.03.2022.

e) Even after dismissal of its appeal, the Company did not pay
13
the penalty and SEBI issued notices stating that criminal
14
prosecution would be initiated.

f) On 23.02.2021, a criminal complaint was filed by the SEBI
15
before the Special Court against the company and
16
appellants for non-compliance of the impugned order .

8
Dated 17.04.2014
9
Appeal No.481 of 2016
10
Civil Appeal No.6706 of 2019
11
Review Application No.32 of 2019
12
On 23.02.2021
13
First notice dated 20.01.2020 to the Company and the appellants
(Harjeet Singh Anand and Arti Bhatia). Second notice dated 27.01.2021
to Sanjay Kapoor.

14
Under Section 24(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992
15
Case No.384 of 2021

7

5. Mr. Vinay Chauhan, learned Advocate for the appellants
submitted that:
i. The appellants are independent directors of the Company
and had no role to play in the day-to-day affairs of the
Company. Any act done by them is approved and ratified
by the management of the Company and shareholders.

ii. Initiation of criminal prosecution against the appellants is
17
contrary to the observations in WTM’s order .

18
iii. The Company in its resolution has undertaken to
reimburse the Directors for any liability imposed on them
by any authority, while discharging their duties in the
interest of the company.

iv. In a separate proceedings, wherein it was alleged that the
Company had diverted funds to GRD and Korp Groups, the
19
AO, SEBI vide order held that there was no diversion of
funds. Hence, appellants cannot be held responsible for the
penalty imposed against the Company.



16
Dated 17.04.2014
17
Para Nos.5 and 6 of order dated 07.05.2013
18
Dated 30.09.2021
19
Dated 14.02.2022

8

6. Mr. J. P. Sen, learned Senior Advocate for the SEBI
submitted that:
i. SEBI has initiated action to recover penalty imposed in the
impugned order. The impugned order has been upheld by
this Tribunal and also by the Apex Court. Therefore, a fresh
challenge to the impugned order is not maintainable before
this Tribunal. A direction to launch prosecution does not
affect appellants’ personal, pecuniary or proprietary rights
and does not make appellants ‘an aggrieved person/s’ in
terms of Section 15T of the SEBI Act. Therefore, these
appeals are not maintainable.

ii. The power to quash or set aside prosecution proceedings
vests with High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and not
this Tribunal.

iii. Appellants have no locus standi because the impugned
order was not passed against them.

iv. The Company failed to pay the penalty imposed by the
impugned order. Therefore, a criminal complaint was filed
against the Company and its Directors including the
appellants under Section 27 of the SEBI Act. SEBI’s
criminal complaint cannot be interfered by this Tribunal
under Section 15T of the SEBI Act.

9

v. SEBI has exclusive authority under Section 24(2) and
27(2) of the SEBI Act to initiate prosecution against every
Director for non-payment of the penalty.

vi. These appeals are filed with an inordinate and unexplained
20 21
delay of 1,563 days (Appeal No.476 and 477 of 2024 )
22
and 1,187 days (Appeal No.478 of 2024 ) without showing
sufficient cause.

vii. Despite their knowledge of penalty since May 2014,
appellants approved misleading financial statements
denying repeated adverse remarks raised by the Auditors
between FY 2013-14 and FY 2023-24 for failure to pay the
SEBI penalty.

23 24
viii. Arti Bhatia and Sanjay Kapoor filed discharge
applications before the SEBI Special Court and the same
were rejected. Thereafter, they approached the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging
the framing of charges and the said proceedings are
pending.


20
Mr. Harjeet Singh Anand v. SEBI
21
Mrs. Arti Bhatia v. SEBI
22
Sanjay Kapoor v. SEBI
23
Appellant in Appeal No.477 of 2024
24
Appellant in Appeal No.478 of 2024

10

7. Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned Advocate for respondent
No.2 (Bharatiya Global/Company) argued supporting the
appellants and opposing SEBI’s stand.

8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
perused the records.

9. In the light of facts recorded hereinabove, the point that
arises for our consideration is whether these appeals are
maintainable?

10. The first prayer in the appeal is to set aside the impugned
order. Admitted position is, SEBI passed the impugned order
imposing a penalty of ₹6 Crores. It was submitted that only
₹16,88,220/- had been recovered and SEBI has initiated criminal
proceedings to recover the remaining amount. It is true that
appellants were not parties in the impugned order. The Company
challenged the order passed by this Tribunal before the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.6706 of 2019 and the same has been
dismissed on 16.09.2019 with the following order:

“O R D E R
1. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

11

25
11. Thereafter, Company filed a review application in this
Tribunal and it was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2020. The
Company challenged the said order also in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1379-1380 of 2022, which
26
were also dismissed holding thus:

“We have perused the papers and considered the appeals on
merits. The review application was filed after the Special Leave
Petitions were dismissed by this Court on merits. Once that was
so, the High Court was absolutely justified in rejecting the
review applications. It is to be noted that what is challenged in
the present appeals is the order rejecting the review application,
and as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the appeals
against the rejection of the review application alone would not
be maintainable. Hence, the Civil Appeals stand dismissed.”

12. SEBI’s order impugned in this appeal has been confirmed
by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. The order
passed by this Tribunal has also been upheld by the Apex Court.
Therefore, appellants being third parties cannot assail the very
same order in these proceedings. In any event, appellants have
challenged criminal proceedings initiated against them before the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13. The second prayer is to dispose of this appeal
expeditiously. The third prayer is to direct the SEBI not to take
coercive steps for recovery of penalty. Since, the appeals are not
maintainable, the second and third prayers do not merit any
consideration.

25
Review Application No.32 of 2019
26
On 04.03.2022

12


14. The fourth prayer is to direct SEBI to drop appellants’
name from SEBI Special Case No.384 of 2021 before SEBI
Special Judge, Mumbai. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the
said Court. Hence, fourth prayer also does not merit
consideration.

15. In the result, these appeals fail. Accordingly, we answer
the point for consideration in the negative . However, we make it
clear that this order shall not preclude the appellants from
seeking appropriate remedy before any appropriate forum as
may be permissible in law.

16. Hence the following:

ORDER

i. Appeal Nos.476, 477 and 478 of 2024 are dismissed .
ii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed
of.
iii. No costs.


Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Presiding Officer


Ms. Meera Swarup
Technical Member


Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar
Technical Member
02.07.2026
RHN

RAJALA
KSHMI
H NAIR
Digitally signed by
RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR
Date: 2026.07.02
14:05:51 +05'30'