Outcome: The specified civil appeals were disposed of in terms of the settlement, with questions of law kept open.

Outcome: The appeal was disposed of without interference in the impugned order, and the question of law was left open.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, were disposed of.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the Securities Appellate Tribunal's order should be condoned on payment of costs and the appeal restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The delay was explained by personal difficulties, financial strain during the pandemic, illness in the family, and difficulty in receiving the impugned order after a change of address. The Court also treated the statutory first appeal as a valuable remedy on facts and considered that the appellant should have an opportunity to contest the matter before the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned subject to payment of costs, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in a first appeal may be condoned where the explanation shows sufficient cause and denial of an appellate hearing would unjustly foreclose a valuable factual remedy.

Outcome: Special leave petitions were dismissed with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed; the Court found no reason to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed, while time was granted to the appellant to file a response to the show-cause notice.

Issues: (i) Whether this Court should interfere with the Securities Appellate Tribunal's judgment dated 22.01.2026; (ii) Whether the appellants are entitled to withdraw Rs. 2.25 crores to meet monthly expenditure as interim relief.

Issue (i): Whether this Court should interfere with the Securities Appellate Tribunal's judgment dated 22.01.2026.

Analysis: The Court reviewed the appellate scope and concluded that there are no grounds warranting interference with the Tribunal's directions. The Court emphasised deference to the Tribunal's orders and found no basis in the material before it to vary those directions. The respondent is accordingly permitted to enforce the Tribunal's directions.

Conclusion: The appeal against the Securities Appellate Tribunal's judgment is dismissed; the decision of the Tribunal is upheld in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants are entitled to withdraw Rs. 2.25 crores to meet monthly expenditure as interim relief.

Analysis: While declining to disturb the Tribunal's substantive directions, the Court considered the appellants' interim needs and allowed a limited, specific withdrawal to meet monthly expenditure. The Court qualified this relief by noting that it has not varied the Tribunal's directions and that the respondent remains entitled to enforce those directions.

Conclusion: The appellants are permitted to withdraw Rs. 2.25 crores for monthly expenditure; this interim relief is granted in favour of the appellants without affecting the enforceability of the Tribunal's directions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed while granting a limited interim withdrawal of Rs. 2.25 crores to the appellants; the Tribunal's directions remain enforceable by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with a tribunal's orders in the absence of valid grounds for disturbance, but may grant limited interim relief to meet urgent exigencies while preserving the enforceability of the tribunal's directions.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Issues: Whether the six-month bar on taking up new assignments as a trustee of an Alternative Investment Fund was disproportionate and liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The appellant had taken remedial steps, including winding up the fund and repaying the investors, and no prejudice or loss to investors was shown. The earlier stay had continued throughout. In these circumstances, the punitive restraint was found to be excessive having regard to the nature of the alleged negligence or inaction, and the ends of justice were held to be met by interference with the impugned order.

Conclusion: The restraint was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the bar on new trustee assignments treated as having expired.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal was not interfered with.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the findings of violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, including Principles (1) and (4), and corresponding provisions under the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015, in relation to non-disclosure and selective disclosure of unpublished price sensitive information, were justified.

1.2 Whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent factual findings of the Adjudicating Officer and the Securities Appellate Tribunal regarding insider trading-related disclosure obligations.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Justification of SEBI's findings of violation of disclosure-related obligations under the 2015 Regulations and LODR Regulations

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court referred to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, in particular Principles (1) and (4), and to Sections 30(10) and 30(11) of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015.

2.2 Principle (1) stipulates prompt public disclosure of unpublished price sensitive information that would impact price discovery as soon as credible and concrete information comes into being, so as to make it generally available.

2.3 Principle (4) mandates prompt dissemination of unpublished price sensitive information that has been selectively disclosed, to make the same generally available.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 The Court noted that negotiations between the concerned entities had reached the stage of a non-binding term sheet dated 04.03.2020, preceded by confidentiality and non-disclosure arrangements.

2.5 It was noticed that, during ongoing negotiations, a news article dated 24.03.2020 in international media, followed by other media reports, disclosed that a preliminary deal for acquisition of a significant stake was close to being signed.

2.6 The Court examined SEBI's conclusion that there existed a statutory duty to disclose unpublished or selectively published price sensitive information so as to make it generally available, coupled with an embargo against insider trading, and found no infirmity in that conclusion.

2.7 The Court particularly relied on the uncontroverted factual scenario that, following publication of the news articles on 24-25.03.2020, the price of the relevant scrip rose by almost 15% on 25.03.2020 as against the previous day's closing price, whereas following the formal corporate announcement on 22.04.2020, the price rise was about 10%, which was comparatively lower.

2.8 On this basis, the Court accepted SEBI's and the Tribunal's inference that the information in question was price sensitive and that the regulatory obligation to ensure prompt and general availability of such information had been attracted and violated.

Conclusions

2.9 The Court held that the findings of SEBI and the Tribunal regarding violation of Principles (1) and (4) of the 2015 Regulations read with the relevant LODR provisions were justified on the facts.

2.10 No ground was made out to interfere with the imposition of monetary penalty as upheld by the Tribunal.

Issue 2 - Existence of any substantial question of law warranting interference

Interpretation and reasoning

2.11 The Court observed that the issues dealt with by SEBI and the Tribunal were substantially questions of fact, turning on appreciation of the factual matrix, including the stage of negotiations, the timing and content of media reports, and the market price movement.

2.12 The Court held that such factual determinations did not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring detailed examination or warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusions

2.13 The Court declined to reappreciate the concurrent factual findings of SEBI and the Tribunal.

2.14 The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty imposed for the insider trading-related disclosure violation stood affirmed; all pending applications were disposed of.