Prima facie regulatory breach upheld; interim security reduced and asset restraint with disclosure ordered pending final adjudication.

The Tribunal found a prima facie case of regulatory breaches based on alleged use of live market data, post-warning testimonials, paid advisory groups and unregistered activities, and refused to set aside the ex parte interim directions; outcome: prima facie case upheld. Balancing SEBI's claimed monetary exposure and appellants' asset and tax submissions, the Tribunal reduced interim monetary security and ordered a protective deposit and restraint on alienation of fixed assets pending reply and final adjudication; outcome: interim security reduced and asset disclosure/valuation and restraint imposed, substantive rights reserved for final determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned ex-parte interim order cum show cause notice dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Whole Time Member, SEBI calling for directions including deposit/impoundment and prohibitions calls for interference; (ii) Whether the quantum of amount sought to be secured/impounded by SEBI (Rs.546 Crores) is justified and what interim security, if any, should be directed.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned interim directions require interference by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The record shows allegations of use of live market data, testimonials uploaded after an administrative warning, paid WhatsApp groups providing recommendations and trading patterns of participants; the appellants declined to contest factual aspects before the Tribunal and the matter is at the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The material on record supports a prima facie inference of violations of SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 and SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014 for the period under consideration (2020-2025).

Conclusion: The Tribunal finds a prima facie case established by SEBI and does not set aside the impugned ex-parte interim directions.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount of Rs.546 Crores sought to be secured is justified as interim impoundment and what modification, if any, is appropriate.

Analysis: SEBI attributes Rs.546 Crores to fees for specified unregistered activities. Appellants produced a schedule showing taxes and other outlays and asserted fixed assets and amounts paid to government. The Tribunal accepted that some sums (taxes and governmental receipts) and fixed assets exist but declined to decide final entitlement or tax character; balancing the prima facie case and the appellants' submissions on assets, the Tribunal found it equitable to reduce the interim monetary security to a realistic secured amount while protecting SEBI's interest.

Conclusion: The Tribunal modifies the impugned directions and directs deposit of Rs.100 Crores in lieu of the earlier security; it further restrains alienation of fixed assets subject to disclosure and valuation and permits the appellants to file reply to the show cause notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part; the Tribunal upholds the existence of a prima facie case against the appellants but moderates the interim monetary relief ordered by SEBI by directing a deposit of Rs.100 Crores and ancillary disclosure and restraint on alienation, while leaving all substantive issues open for final adjudication by the Whole Time Member, SEBI.

---