Securities Appellate Tribunal
Manjulaben Maheshchandra Chunilal Shah vs Securities and Exchange Board of India on 3 November 2026
IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT MUMBAI
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026.
CORAM: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member
Appeal No. 351 of 2026
[Along with Misc. Application Nos. 1037 and 1038 of 2026]
BETWEEN:
Manjulaben Maheshchandra Chunilal Shah
(for herself and as the sole legal heir of Late Maheshchandra Chunilal Shah)
E-11, Bhavna Complex,
Opp. Terapanth Bhavan,
Shahibaug, Ahmedabad- 380 004 …Appellant
AND
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, C4-A, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051
…Respondent
Mr. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Karthik K.P, and Mr. Devya Shah, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent-SEBI.
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI
ACT, 1992 TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
27.07.2018 (EX-A) PASSED BY THE WTM, SEBI.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND THE TRIBUNAL
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Per: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)
This appeal is filed by a senior citizen with a prayer inter alia to modify the impugned order dated 27.07.2018 (Ex-A) passed by the WTM1, SEBI2 by holding that appellant is not precluded from liquidating her securities.
2. We have heard Mr. Vikas Bengani, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Manish Chhangani, learned advocate for the respondent.
3. Undisputed facts of the case are, appellant and her husband are the noticees in the instant proceedings. On 05.11.2013, an ex parte ad-interim order was passed restraining them from accessing the securities market and the same was confirmed on 07.05.2015. In the meanwhile, appellant’s husband passed away in 2013.
After adjudication, the WTM has passed the impugned order on 27.07.2018.
4. Mr. Bengani submitted that appellant is presently aged 78 years and she has no children. There is a balance of ₹ 14191.98 in her demat account and a sum of ₹ 345537.20 in her husband’s demat account. In addition, there are in all 26,818 physical shares and some of them are in joint names and some in individual names.
1 Whole Time Member 2 Securities and Exchange Board of India
5. Mr. Bengani submitted that appellant is not challenging the findings recorded in the impugned order, but would be satisfied if the impugned order is modified and appellant is permitted to sell her securities as she has no means of survival.
6. Mr. Chhangani for the SEBI submitted that there is delay of about 2,900 days in filing this appeal. Appellant is not challenging the correctness of the order. Paragraph No. 145(a) of the impugned order debars the appellant from accessing the market for a period of 10 years from the date of compliance. The disgorgement amount has been recovered in 2025 and therefore, the debarment shall be in force till 2035. Hence, this appeal does not merit consideration.
7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
8. The direction in paragraph No.145(a) of the impugned order debars the appellant for 10 years, which will end in 2035. Appellant is aged 78 years. To a pointed query with regard to the total value of shares, Mr. Bengani submitted that it is between ₹ 5 to 10 Lakhs.
9. Pursuant to the interim order in 2013, appellant has been restrained from accessing the securities market. The impugned order is passed in 2018 debars the appellant for ten years from the date of compliance, which will end in 2035. In the facts of this case, in our view, such order is harsh. Reckoned from 2013, appellant has suffered debarment of about 13 years.
10. In the circumstances, the following:
ORDER
i. Misc. Application No. 1037 of 2026 is allowed and delay in filing this appeal is condoned.
ii. Appeal is allowed in part. The direction at paragraph No.145(a) is modified holding that the appellant shall be at liberty to liquidate her shares. The findings and the remaining directions are undisturbed.
iii. It is made clear that this order is passed in peculiar facts of this case and shall not be treated as precedent.
iv. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
v. No costs.
Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 03.11.2026 PK PRERNA MANISH KHARE Digitally signed by PRERNA MANISH KHARE Date: 2026.11.04 16:50:51 +05'30'