Viresh joshi vs Securities and Exchange Board of India on 21 September 2026

ORDER:

Admit.

2. Respondent is granted four weeks to file reply and two weeks thereafter to the appellant to file rejoinder.

3. The appellant was the Chief Dealer of Axis Mutual Fund. The allegation against him is, he communicated the UPSI to Noticee No.5, who in turn, traded using mule accounts. By the impugned order, SEBI has imposed a penalty of Rs.3 crores upon the appellant and issued directions for disgorgement of Rs.30.55 crores, payable jointly and severally.

4. Mr. P.N. Modi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the disgorgement amount of

Rs.30.55 Crore has been deposited by the respective parties. He submitted that the impugned order does not show that appellant had traded through the mule accounts. He further submitted that Noticee Nos. 2 and 3 did not make themselves available for the cross-examination. The Adjudicating Authority has held that the appellant did not ask for cross- examination of the said noticees.

5. In substance, Mr. Modi submitted that in the absence of cross-examination, the deposition of the witness during examination-in-chief cannot be considered. There is no material to show that appellant had indulged in trading. With these submissions, he prayed that the recovery of penalty and debarment may be stayed.

6. In reply, Mr. Chetan Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for SEBI submitted that the appellant has not approached this Tribunal for more than three and half years with his grievance of debarment. Adverting to paragraph 93 of the impugned order, he submitted that appellant has admitted that the telephone with SIM Card bearing No. +851XXXX891 belonged to him. He has also admitted that the said telephone was used by him for some time in the past. Though appellant claims to have retracted his statement made before the SEBI officials, such retraction has been made by way of a police complaint after a lapse of about one year. He submitted that retraction after a lapse of one year from the date of recording this statement cannot be considered as a genuine retraction. He submitted that appellant was the chief dealer and in possession of confidential UPSI which he communicated to noticee No.5, who in turn, traded by using mule accounts. He submitted that appellant has admittedly breached the confidentiality by conveying the UPSI which resulted in front running the trade of the big client (Axis Mutual Fund). He submitted that appellant is not entitled for any interim relief.

7. In rejoinder, Mr. Modi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant adverting to page 435 of the memorandum of appeal submitted that retraction was made immediately. However, the Police official has over-written the year as 2023 instead of 2022. He submitted that appellant has undergone debarment of about three and half years which is equal to one half of the period of debarment ordered by SEBI.

8. We have considered the rival submissions.

9. Admitted position is that the appellant was working as the Chief Dealer of Axis Mutual Fund. In paragraph 93 and 94 of the impugned order, the Adjudicating Officer has recorded that the appellant has conceded with regard to the telephone bearing no. +851XXXX891. This is based on appellant’s admission in his statement. Mr. Modi’s argument is that appellant has retracted his statement.

10. We have perused page 435 of memorandum of appeal which is the retraction statement by the appellant. The acknowledgement date beneath the signature of the Police Officer prima facie shows the year as 2023. The statement was recorded in 2022. Appellant has not produced any material to corroborate his contention that he had retracted his statement given before the SEBI officers in 2022 itself. Further, the statement was recorded by the SEBI officials. In our prima facie view, appellant ought to have written to the SEBI authorities intimating the alleged retraction. It is not understandable why retraction was communicated to Police authorities. This is a statutory first appeal and appellant had all opportunities to produce such material to substantiate his claim that the retraction was indeed done in 2022.

11. Mr. Kapadia also suggested that in the peculiar facts of this case, this Tribunal may consider hearing the appeal expeditiously/out of turn. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to appellant to move the Tribunal for expeditious hearing after pleadings are complete.

12. Call on 05.11.2026.

Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar

Presiding Officer

Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 21.09.2026 msb MADHUKAR BHALBAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR BHALBAR Date: 2026.09.24 18:03:45 +05'30'