An Entity Is Not an 'Aggrieved Person' Under Section 15T Without Demonstrable Legal Injury or Interest.

The Appellant, a registered society focused on public concerns in the financial sector

this impugned order was the result of a remand by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) on January 23, 2023, which directed SEBI to reconsider charges of connivance and collusion between OPG Securities and officials of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) regarding the "co-location" matter

The Appellant alleged that SEBI failed to address all issues directed by the Tribunal in the remand

SEBI and the other Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing the Appellant lacked locus standi as they were neither an investor nor a party who suffered legal injury

the Appellant had previously filed a Writ Petition in the Madras High Court seeking similar reliefs via a Special Investigation Team

Section 15T of the SEBI Act, 1992, which mandates that only a "person aggrieved" by an order of the Board may prefer an appeal

the precedent set in NSE v. SEBI (Appeal No. 333 of 2019), which clarified that a person who has not suffered a legal injury, is not an investor/user of the services in question, or is merely espousing a public cause in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) does not constitute an "aggrieved person"

Rule 21 of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2000, as an enabling provision to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, which cannot be invoked when no legal standing exists or when a statutory regulator has already complied with remand directions

The Tribunal reasoned that the Appellant is a society whose objectives are general public advocacy rather than direct participation in the securities market

Applying the ratio from A. Kumar v. SEBI (reiterated in NSE v. SEBI), the Tribunal observed that the Appellant had not suffered any legal injury, was not an investor, and had no lis (dispute) with the NSE

The Tribunal noted that the Appellant’s attempt to challenge the order was effectively a PIL, which falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Regarding Rule 21, the Tribunal found that since SEBI (the market regulator) had already passed a fresh order pursuant to the earlier remand, there was no "contingency" or "abuse of process" necessitating the use of inherent powers to bypass standing requirements

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable

The Tribunal further declined to exercise powers under Rule 21, asserting that the regulatory process had been followed and no grounds for intervention existed

All pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs