๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐ง๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ฆ๐๐ฏ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ง๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐: ๐ง๐ต๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐๐ง ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐
Mint (23 February 2026) features an article titled โ๐๐ฉ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐๐ฆ๐ด๐ฉ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ค๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บโ, jointly authored by Mr. Sumit Agrawal, Managing Partner, Regstreet Law Advisors and former Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Officer along with Mr. M Damodaran, Former Chairman, SEBI, UTI Mutual Fund and Industrial Development Bank of India.
The article examines three significant decisions of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) i.e., Varun Beverages, Bombay Dyeing, and DroneAcharya, and situates them within the broader evolution of Indiaโs securities enforcement jurisprudence. While each ruling addresses distinct issues relating to disclosure, accounting treatment, fraud under the PFUTP Regulations, IPO fund utilisation, and interim relief, collectively they signal an inflection point in how accountability is being judicially framed.
In Varun Beverages, the Tribunal elevated disclosure from procedural compliance to substantive communication, holding that material developments cannot be buried in financial statement notes. Any material information buried in fine print is no dis-closure at all.
In Bombay Dyeing, SAT underscored the importance of statutory certainty, holding that a 19% shareholding cannot be treated as crossing the 20% associate threshold. The decision draws a firm boundary against regulatory overreach and clarifies that accounting controversies do not automatically amount to fraud under PFUTP absent a demonstrable securities nexus and rigorous proof.
In DroneAcharya, the Tribunal adopted a calibrated approach to interim relief, permitting capital raising pending appeal subject to prominent disclosure of SEBIโs findings. The ruling reflects a preference for conditional transparency over blanket exclusion, signalling faith in informed investor choice while balancing deterrence with economic continuity.
Taken together, the article argues that these decisions reveal a discernible judicial trajectory, one that strengthens substantive disclosure, confines fraud within definitional and evidentiary discipline, and recognises disclosure as the central regulatory currency of securities law. Disclosure has been elevated from procedural compliance to substantive duty.
The full article can be accessed at https://lnkd.in/dVH2rvdM. Readers can share their views with Regstreet Law Advisors at info@regstreetlaw.com.
