Securities Appellate Tribunal
Ganesh Trading Proprietor- Vairagi Kalpeshpuri Ganeshpuri vs Adjudicating Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India on 4 November 2026
IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT
MUMBAI
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
CORAM : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member
Appeal No. 390 of 2026
And
Misc. Application No. 1149 of 2026
Between
1. Ganesh Trading
(Proprietor – Vairagi Kalpeshpuri
Ganeshpuri)
A/13, Milan Park, Vejalpur,
Ahmedabad – 380 051.
…. Appellant
By Mr. Jitendra Sharda, Advocate for the Appellant.
And
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan-2, C-7, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051.
…. Respondent
By Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Karthik K.P., Ms. Sanskrity Purohit, Mr. Devya Shah, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent.
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF SEBI
ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY
12, 2026 (EX-A) PASSED BY AO, SEBI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS 4TH DAY
OF NOVEMBER, 2026, THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED 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 directed against order dated February 12, 2026 passed by AO1, SEBI2, imposing penalty on the appellant for violation of Securities laws.
2. We have heard Mr. Jitendra Sharda, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Manish Chhangani, learned advocate for the respondent.
3. For the reasons stated therein, Misc. Application No. 1149 of 2026 for condonation of delay of 192 days in filing this appeal is allowed and disposed of.
4. Admitted position is that the AO, SEBI has initiated certain proceedings against the appellant and it has culminated in an ex parte order, impugned in this appeal.
5. Mr. Katariya submitted that though the show cause notice was served upon the appellant, the hearing notice was not served and it is contrary to the authority in Bajranglal B. Maloo HUF vs. SEBI3.
6. Mr. Katariya’s contention that hearing notice was not served and the position of law as held in Bajranglal B. Maloo (supra) is not disputed by the learned advocate for the respondent.
1 Adjudicating Officer 2 Securities & Exchange Board of India 3 Appeal No. 564 of 2021 decided on August 31, 2021
7. We have perused Bajranglal B. Maloo and note that this Tribunal has ruled in that case that an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order is mandatory under Rule 4(3) of the Rules4.
8. In the circumstances, the order dated February 12, 2026 is unsustainable and accordingly set aside. Matter is remitted to the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
9. Appellant is granted four weeks from today to file their reply. Appellant shall appear before the AO on December 10, 2026 without waiting for any notice from the SEBI.
10. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
No costs.
Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 04.11.2026 PTM
4 SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 MRS PRAMILA Digitally signed by MRS PRAMILA Date: 2026.11.05 12:53:49 +05'30'