The Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside SEBI's two-year debarment of the Price Waterhouse network in the Satyam matter, holding that an auditor who does not deal in securities cannot be barred under the PFUTP framework absent cogent proof of fraud or connivance — mere audit negligence falls to the ICAI, not SEBI. The Supreme Court has since stayed the broad jurisdictional observation.
The Supreme Court held that front-running by a person who is not a registered intermediary is prohibited under the SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations 2003. 'Fraud' in Regulations 3 and 4 is read broadly to cover any act that induces another to deal in securities, even without deceit, and Regulation 4(2)(q) is not confined to intermediaries.
On 21 November 2025, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in GR Infra Projects Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, prima facie holding that a show-cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act that sets out only figures, without a factual narration of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, is legally deficient. The order has shaped the High Court line on Section 74 and, by extension, on Section 74A — which now governs the extended-limitation regime from 1 April 2024 — and reaffirms the jurisdictional-fact doctrine for the extended-limitation framework.
Valkya Editorial··8 min
TribunalSecurities and Exchange Board of India / Securities Appellate Tribunal
On 28 April 2026, SEBI passed a final order in the long-running Winsome Yarns GDR matter against Arun Panchariya, recomputing the penalty from approximately ₹67 crore to ₹20 lakh after the Securities Appellate Tribunal had repeatedly directed reassessment on proportionality grounds. The order is a worked example of how SAT's proportionality jurisprudence — the requirement that penalty quantum reflect comparable precedents, the role of mitigation evidence, and the limits on penalty when gains are not conclusively established — operates in the GDR-fraud space.