The Delhi High Court has clarified that when an efficacious statutory remedy is available before the Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 15T of the SEBI Act, 1992, and Section 23L of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the present petition appeared to have been filed solely to interdict the IPO of Respondent No. 2. The Bench noted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by any inaction on the part of SEBI, the efficacious remedy available was to approach the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) under Section 15T of the SEBI Act, 1992, and Section 23L of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956.
The Bench clarified that any person aggrieved by the NOC granted by SEBI is entitled to approach the SAT. Further, the Bench observed that both Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are based in Mumbai, the NOC was granted in Mumbai, and therefore, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The Bench also noted that the transactions regarding wrongful debits from the petitioner’s account were already the subject matter of three separate proceedings initiated by the petitioner. In view of these reasons, the Bench dismissed the petition at the threshold without making any observations on the merits or demerits of the case.
Briefly, the petitioner, by way of petition under Article 226, had sought several directions against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and another respondent, including: (a) a writ of mandamus directing SEBI to place on record the regulatory examination undertaken prior to granting IPO approval or prior to commencement of IPO to Respondent No. 2; (b) a direction to SEBI to conduct an investigation under Sections 11 and 11C of the SEBI Act into the CAA mechanism and resultant investor debits; (c) a direction to SEBI to take immediate interim measures to prevent further abuse of SEBI Circulars pertaining to Corporate Action adjustment; and (d) a restraint on SEBI from giving effect to or acting upon any IPO approval granted to Respondent No. 2, pending disposal of the writ petition.
The petitioner had previously written emails to SEBI regarding alleged scams in stock exchanges and the misuse of SEBI circulars by stock exchanges on corporate action adjustment, specifically requesting that permission not be granted for an IPO to the National Stock Exchange.
The petitioner also lodged a public grievance at the CPGRAMS portal and initiated other proceedings, including a civil suit (referred to arbitration), a pending writ petition (W.P.(C) 1744/2026), and criminal action against Respondent No. 2. The petitioner claimed to be aggrieved by regulatory inaction and the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted by SEBI to Respondent No. 2, alleging abdication of statutory duties by SEBI under Sections 11, 11A, and 11C of the SEBI Act, 1992, and failure to consider unlawful debits and impermissible transactions on the platform of Respondent No. 2.
Appearances:
Petitioner, in person
Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal and Neeraj Malhotra, along with Advocates Abhishek Baid, Mohit Kumar Bafna, Praneet Das, Ravinder Kumar, Sonali Jaitly Bakhshi, Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Ravi Tyagi, Mayank Mishra, Gaurav Mishra, Manmilan Sidhu, Daman Popli, Sudhiksha Saini, Sahil Dhawan, Abhijay Basu, Ishan Agrawal, Gandharv Garg, Anshit Aggarwal, and Nimish Kumar, for the Respondent
