Chennai Financial Markets & Accountability vs SEBI

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT MUMBAI

TH
DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF JUNE, 2026

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



Appeal No.703 of 2024



Chennai Financial Markets & Accountability
GA Florentine No.43,
st
1 Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai – 600020.






…Appellant

(By Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj, Advocate with Ms. Rutu V. Pawar,
Advocate i/b. Pragnya Legal for the Appellant . )

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Plot No.C4/A, G-Block,
BKC, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400051.

2. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.(NSE)
Exchange Plaza, C-1, Block G,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051.

3. Mr. Ravi Narain
(Former MD & CEO of NSE)
B3, Diwanshree Apartments,
30 Firoz Shah Road,
New Delhi – 110001.

2

4. Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna
(Former MD & CEO of NSE)
201, Laxmi Habitat,
th
7 Cross Road, Chembur,
Mumbai – 400071.

5. Mr. Subramaniam Anand
(Former Chief Strategic &
Group Operating Officer of NSE)
2/14, Vishranti Saktimaya II
Main Road, Seethamal Extension,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600018.

6. Mr. Ravi Apte
(Former CTO of NSE)
602, Cappela Building Lane No.2,
72/73, Anand Park, Aundh,
Pune – 411007.

7. Mr. Umesh Jain
(Former CTO of NSE)
101, Lodha Bellissimo,
N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi,
Mumbai – 400011.

8. Mr. Mahesh Soparkar
(Head of PSM Team)
NEAT House, Off. Gokhale Road,
Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028.

9. Mr. Deviprasad Singh
Flat No.101, Building No.EMP12,
Juipter CHS, Thakur Village,
Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101.



































…Respondents

(By Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Manish Chhangani, Mr.
Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Agrawal,
Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent-SEBI.)

3

(Mr. Abishek Venkatraman, Advocate with Ms. Anusha
Jegadeesh, Mr. Prabhav Shroff, Mr. Harshit Jaiswal, and Ms. Isha
Patil, Advocates i/b. AZB & Partners for the Respondent No.2.)

(Mr. Robin Shah, Advocate i/b. Bodhi Legal for the Respondent
No.3.)

(Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, Advocate with Mr. Pranav Kethineni,
Advocate i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Respondent
Nos.6, 8 and 9.)


THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI ACT
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2024 PASSED
BY THE SEBI.


THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON APRIL 24, 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 September 13,
1 2 3
2024 passed by WTM , SEBI with following prayers is:

“(a) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the
Impugned Order dated September 13, 2024 passed by the Ld.
Whole Time Member, SEBI. Exhibit-A, page 37-119.

1
Whole Time Member
2
Securities and Exchange Board of India: Respondent No-01
3
Para VIII at page 33 of memorandum of appeal

4

(b) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to appoint or direct the
Respondent No.1 to appoint an independent third party
/committee to re-consider the angle of connivance and collusion
of OPG and its directors with any employee/officials of NSE.

(C) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent
No. 1 to assist an independent third party/committee by
providing all the material evidence/ objective facts on record in
this case as available from Forensic Reports and investigation
conducted so far, to re-consider the charge of connivance and
collusion of OPG and its directors with any employee/officials
of NSE.

(d) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent
No. I to seek information from CBI which is investigating the
NSE colocation matter and has filed charge sheets against ex-
NSE senior officials to consider and scrutinize the same to re-
consider the charge of connivance and collusion of OPG and its
directors with any employee/officials of NSE.

(e) for costs of and incidental to this Appeal to be paid by the
Respondents to the Appellant; and,

(f) for such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”


2 . We have heard Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj, learned Advocate for
the appellant, Mr. Vishal kanade, learned Advocate for the SEBI,
Mr. Abhishek Venkatraman, learned Advocate for respondent
No.2, Mr. Robin Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No.3, Mr.
Rashid Boatwalla, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.6, 8 and
9. None appeared for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7.

3. Brief facts of the case are:
a) Appellant, Chennai Financial Markets & Accountability is a
society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies

5

Registration Act, 1975, with an objective to address public
concerns and provide assistance in the areas of banking,
insurance and financial sector or any other domain of
public/community interested and provide solution to the
aggrieved parties.

b) A whistle-blower complaint was lodged before SEBI in
January 2015 and thereafter, following which SEBI undertook
investigation and passed two separate orders on April 30,
4
2019, one against NSE and its officials and another against
5
OPG and its directors, holding OPG guilty of unfair access to
secondary servers and imposing a penalty of ₹15.57 Crore
and exonerating NSE and its officials on the charge of
connivance and collusion.

6
c) On appeal, this Tribunal by order dated January 23, 2023 ,
remanded the matter to SEBI for re-adjudication on following
issues:

“g. The violations committed by OPG as found by
WTM is affirmed. However, the direction of the
WTM directing OPG and its Directors to disgorge
Rs.15.57 crores alongwith interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from 7th April, 2014 onwards is set
aside. The matter is remitted to the WTM to
decide the quantum of disgorgement afresh in the
light of the observation made above within four
months from today.

4
WTM/GM/EFD/03/2018-19 (hereinafter '2019 SEBI NSE Order')
5
WTM/GM/EFD/02/2019-20 (hereinafter '2019 SEBI OPG Order')
6
Appeal No.333 of 2019 and other Connected Appeals

6


h. In addition to the above, we direct the WTM to
consider the charge of connivance and collusion
of OPG and its Directors with any
employee/officials of NSE. Further, the WTM will
decide the issuance of direction/penalty
concealment/destruction of vital information and
will further reconsider Issue No.2 relating to
crowding out other market participants.”

7
d) Pursuant thereto, SEBI issued a fresh SCN on May 17,
2023 and passed the impugned order dated September
13, 2024, disposing the proceedings against NSE and its
employees without any directions, while simultaneously
enhancing the penalty against OPG to ₹ 85.25 crores and
holding it guilty under the PFUTP Regulations. This order
has been challenged by OPG in this Tribunal and it is
pending consideration.

e) According to the appellant, out of four issues, SEBI has
considered only the issue pertaining to the charge of
connivance and collusion of OPG and its directors. The
remaining three issues have not been considered.

4. SEBI has raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of this appeal. Mr. Kanade for SEBI submitted
that appellant has no locus standi . Further, this appeal is in the
nature of a ‘Public Interest Litigation’ and this Tribunal has no

7
Show Cause Notice

7

8
jurisdiction to entertain a PIL . The other respondents also
argued on similar lines. Hence, we have considered the
maintainability of this appeal as a preliminary issue.

5. Mr. Natraj, learned Advocate for appellant submitted that
the impugned order has not dealt with all the issues as directed
by this Tribunal.

6. He submitted that the appellant falls within the definition
of ‘any person aggrieved’ occurring in Section 15T of the SEBI
Act and that this Tribunal can exercise powers under Rule 21 of
the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2000 to
secure the ends of justice.

7. In reply, Mr. Kanade argued that the appellant has not
suffered any legal injury nor has any right of the appellant been
affected by the impugned order. Therefore, appellant is not a
‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 15T of the SEBI
Act.

8. We have carefully considered rival submissions.

9. Section 15T of the SEBI Act provides that ‘any person
aggrieved’ by an order of the Board may prefer an appeal before
9
this Tribunal. In NSE v. SEBI , this Tribunal had an occasion to
examine the meaning of a ‘person aggrieved’. We may record
that in NSE v. SEBI, NSE had challenged SEBI’s order in

8
Public Interest Litigation
9
Appeal No.333 of 2019 and connected appeals decided on 23.01.2023 by
the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.

8

co-location case. One Mr. A Kumar had also filed Appeal No.433
of 2019 ( A Kumar v. SEBI ) challenging the very same order
impugned by NSE. While considering the appeals this Tribunal
has held thus:
“17. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicates that
any person aggrieved by an order of the Board may
prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. Admittedly, the
appellant is an advocate practicing in the Madras High
Court. The impugned order does not affect him in any
way nor is he concerned with the securities market.
Nothing has been stated as to how the appellant is
aggrieved by any finding of the WTM in the impugned
order. Shri A. Kumar has not produced any new
material or evidence which would necessitate an
intervention by the applicant in the present appeal. Mr.
A. Kumar admittedly had not availed any Colocation
service and, therefore, he is not an aggrieved person as
an investor or user of NSE services. The applicant has
no connection with NSE nor is otherwise interested in
the functioning of NSE and, therefore, we are of the
opinion that the applicant Mr. A. Kumar is not
aggrieved by any action of NSE let alone Colocation
facilities.

18. A perusal of the memo of appeal and the
intervention application indicates that he is espousing a
public cause, namely, to ensure that the market is
transparent, fair and equal access is given to all
participants. In this regard, the applicant has already
made a complaint to SEBI which is pending
consideration and has also filed a writ petition before
the Madras High Court seeking a direction to SEBI to
pass appropriate orders on his complaint. The
complaint and the writ petition filed before the Madras
High Court by Mr. A. Kumar is in the nature of a public
interest litigation. Since the ground raised in the memo
of appeal and in the intervention application are
pending consideration before the Madras High Court
which directions has been sought to SEBI to decide its
representation, it is not open to Mr. A. Kumar to make
the same prayer before this Tribunal. Once the

9

appellant has chosen a particular forum for redressal of
his grievance it is no longer open to the applicant Mr. A.
Kumar to choose another forum.

19. In any case, since the impugned order does not
affect the interest of the appellant, we are of the opinion
that the applicant is not a person aggrieved and is
therefore neither a proper or a necessary party.

20. Further, the contention raised in the memo of appeal
directing SEBI to conduct certain investigation cannot
be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding
the present appeal. We are of the opinion that the
applicant Mr. A. Kumar has no locus standi to file an
appeal or to intervene as he is not a necessary or an
interested party and even though we had heard the
applicant at length the intervention application cannot
be entertained. We are of the opinion that the intervener
has no locus to intervene as he is not a necessary or
interested party. Accordingly, the appeal and the
intervention applications filed by Mr. A. Kumar are
rejected.”

10. It is stated in the appellant’s written submission that
appellant has filed Writ Petition No.28493 of 2019 before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras with a prayer inter alia to
constitute a special investigation team to investigate the NSE
co-location scam.

11 . The appellant’s claims to be a society with an objective to
address public concerns and provide assistance in the area of
banking, insurance, etc. Admittedly, the appellant is neither an
investor nor suffered any loss. There is no lis between appellant
and NSE. This Tribunal is an appellate authority to consider the
appeal under Section 15T of the SEBI Act. In an identical

10

situation, in the case of Mr. A Kumar , this Tribunal has already
held that he was not an aggrieved party. Appellant’s case is
identical in nature. We are in respectful agreement with the
opinion expressed in NSE v. SEBI , the relevant portion of which
is extracted hereinabove.

12. In our considered opinion, appellant is not an ‘aggrieved
person’, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable under Section

15T of the SEBI Act.

13. Learned Advocate for the appellant has also contended
that this Tribunal may exercise power under Rule 21 of the SAT,
Rules. The said rule reads as follows:

“21. The Appellate Tribunal may make, such orders or
give such directions as may be necessary or expedient
to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its
process or to secure the ends of justice.”

14. In our considered view, the above rule can be pressed
into service by this Tribunal to give effect to the order of this
Tribunal or to prevent abuse of Tribunal’s process or to secure
ends of justice. By the earlier order, this Tribunal had remanded
the matter to SEBI for fresh consideration. SEBI is the market
Regulator under the SEBI Act and it has passed a fresh order.
Therefore, there is no contingency to exercise this Tribunal’s
power under Rule 21 of the Rules.

15 . In view of the above discussion, we hold that appellant is
not an aggrieved person under Section 15T nor is there any

11

contingency to exercise Rule 21 of the Rules. Hence, this appeal
is not maintainable and hereby dismissed .

16 . Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.

17 . No Costs.

Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Presiding Officer


Ms. Meera Swarup
Member
Technical



Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar
Technical Member


18.06.2026
RHN
RAJALA
KSHMI
H NAIR
Digitally signed
by RAJALAKSHMI
H NAIR
Date: 2026.06.18
16:10:38 +05'30'