Topic

Securities Appellate Tribunal

2 articlesLatest September 2026
Regulation 27(1) sub-clauses (i)-(iii) apply to borrowers, subsidiaries and associates of a promoter | SEBI CRA penalty set aside : SAT
Case Law Analysis
|Securities Appellate Tribunal

Regulation 27(1) sub-clauses (i)-(iii) apply to borrowers, subsidiaries and associates of a promoter | SEBI CRA penalty set aside : SAT

The SAT ruled that the conditions in sub-clauses (i)-(iii) of SEBI’s Regulation 27(1) bind not only the promoter’s direct entities but also borrowers, subsidiaries and associates linked to the promoter. This interpretation broadens the scope of prohibited rating assignments for credit rating agencies, exposing them to liability for ratings tied to any promoter-related borrowing.

SEBI Act | Unregistered Investment Advisors Must Refund Fees Even Without Investor Claims: SAT Reinforces Absolute Liability
Case Law Analysis
|Securities Appellate Tribunal

SEBI Act | Unregistered Investment Advisors Must Refund Fees Even Without Investor Claims: SAT Reinforces Absolute Liability

The Securities Appellate Tribunal ruled that unregistered investment advisors cannot retain fees collected from clients, regardless of whether investors seek refunds. The decision underscores SEBI's power to enforce full restitution, reinforcing investor protection and regulatory compliance in securities advisory services.