Securities Appellate Tribunal
Sapan Shrivastava vs Trident Limited & Others on 9 January, 2026
IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT MUMBAI
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
CORAM: Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member
Misc. Application No.1357 of 2024
In
Appeal No.31 of 2025
Sapan Shrivastava
D 102, Natraj Darshan,
Ganesh Nagar Chowk,
Dombivali West, Thane 421202. .....Appellant
(By Mr. Sapan Shrivastava, Appellant in person.)
1. Trident Limited
Trident Group, Sanghera - 148101.
2. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.
Exchange Plaza, Plot no.C/1,
G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
3. BSE India
Dalal Street, Mumbai CSMT.
4. SEBI
SEBI, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 51. ....Respondents
2
(By Mr. Rushin Kapadia, Advocate with Mr. Taher Rangwala,
Advocate i/b. The Fort Circle for the Respondent No.1).
(By Mr. Vishal Jathar, Advocate i/b. Parinam Law Associates for
the Respondent No. 2).
(By Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr.
Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Agrawal, Advocates i/b. The Law
Point for the Respondent No.3).
(By Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Khushbu
Chhajed, Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Ms. Rasika Ghate and Ms. Khushbu
Trivedi, Advocates i/b. MDP Legal for Respondent No.4).
With
Misc. Application No.168 of 2025
In
Appeal No.110 of 2025
Sapan Shrivastava
D 102, Natraj Darshan,
Ganesh Nagar Chowk,
Dombivali West, Thane 421202. .....Appellant
(By Mr. Sapan Shrivastava, Appellant in person.)
1. Infosys Limited
85-c, Mittal Tower, 8th Floor,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021.
2. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.
Exchange Plaza, Plot No.C/1,
G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
3. BSE India
Dalal Street, Mumbai CSMT.
4. SEBI
SEBI, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 51. ....Respondents
3
(By Mr. Arka Saha, Advocate with Mr. Tarun Toprani, Advocate i/b.
Khaitan & Co. for the Respondent No.1).
(By Mr. Vishal Jathar, Advocate i/b. Parinam Law Associates for
the Respondent No.2).
(By Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr.
Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Agrawal, Advocates i/b. The Law
Point for the Respondent No.3).
(By Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Ms. Khushbu Chhajed, Mr.
Nishit Dhruva, Ms. Rasika Ghate and Ms. Khushbu Trivedi,
Advocates i/b. MDP Legal for the Respondent No.4).
With
Misc. Application No.561 of 2025
In
Appeal No.253 of 2025
1. Ravikant Manikrao Kendre
Flat No.606, RKL Anand,
Tathwade Pune.
2. Nitin Kumar Singh
H.No.-60A, Street no-2,
Lakhpat Colony,
Part-1, Meethapur Extn.,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.
3. Siva Ganesh Tamilalagan
C-39, TVK Street, Seshasayee
Nagar, K.K. Nagar,
Tiruchirapalli-620021.
4. Kamal Agrawal
D59 Aishwarya Kingdom
Kachna, Raipur, Chattisgarh.
5. Sapan Shrivastava
D 102, Natraj Darshan,
Ganesh Nagar Chowk,
4
Dombivali West, Thane-421202.
6. Polareddy Darga Reddy
H.no.89, Near East Ramalayam,
Nunna, Vijayawada Rural NTR
District, Andhra Pradesh. .....Appellants
(By Mr. Sapan Shrivastava, Appellant in person.)
1. Bharat Global Developers Ltd.
G Block, Uniza Corporate Office,
Premchand Nagar Road,
Opposite Krishna Complex,
Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015.
2. BSE India
Dalal Street, Mumbai CSMT.
3. SEBI
SEBI, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 51. ....Respondents
(By Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr.
Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Agrawal, Advocates i/b. The Law
Point for the Respondent No.2).
(By Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Shah,
Mr. Akash Jain and Mr. Abhishek Nair, Advocates i/b. Mansukhlal
Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent No.3).
THESE MISCELLANOEUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED IN THE
APPEAL SEEKING WAIVER FROM ALL TYPES OF FEES IN THE
APPEAL.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON DECEMBER 09, 2025, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE TRIBUNAL
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
We have heard Shri Sapan Shrivastava, party-in-person and Shri Chetan Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for the SEBI.
2. These Misc. Applications are filed with a prayer to waive the court fee of ₹5,000 payable on the memorandum of the appeal.
3. It is averred in the applications that applicant is seeking justice for violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21; applicant is a small investor with a share value of less that 5000; as per Section 9 of the SAT Rules the fee payable is ₹5000 to challenge an order passed by the AO and the Board. There is no order passed by the AO and the Board and therefore, no fee is payable. The party-in-person has referred to some authorities in the application.
4. Shri Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for the SEBI submitted that appellant is a serial and habitual litigant. In the cases filed by him claiming to espouse the public cause, the Courts have passed orders imposing costs and other directions. He has filed a compilation containing the following cases:
Sr.No. Date Particulars
1 17.01.2024 Bandra MM Court Order directing
Complainant to file with the
appropriate court of jurisdiction along with Case Status 2 22.03.2024 Sessions Court Order of Special Judge rejecting the Application filed 6 by Applicant for initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings against Madhabi Puri Buch for not taking action on the Complaint filed by the Applicant with respect of Radhe Developers IPO.
3 14.112017 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order rejecting the PIL filed by Petitioner for lacking knowledge in the procedure and merits in the PIL 4 22.04.2019 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order in Review Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 14.11.2017 (Sr. No. 3) upholding the Order dated 14.11.2017 and dismissing the Review Petition 5 17.03.2017 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order in PIL filed by the Petitioner dismissing the PIL stating that the Petitioner has carried out amendments without Court's permission and lacks knowledge of procedure 6 01.08.2019 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order in PIL dismissing the PIL stating that it is a frivolous PIL and imposed Rs.25,000/-cost on Petitioner 7 05.09.2019 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order in PIL dismissing the PIL and stating that it is a frivolous PIL and imposed Rs.5,00,000/-cost on Petitioner and requesting Respondent No.2 to file FIR against Petitioner for extortion.
8 14.07.2023 Article stating that the Petitioner had filed Contempt Petition against the Judges of Hon'ble Bombay High Court for passing Order dated 05.9.20219 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India declining to hear the Petition.
9 26.04.2017 Bail Application Order allowing the 7 Bail of Mr. Sapan in an FIR filed by a chemist u/s. 384 and 170 of IPC 10 14.02.2018 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order in Criminal PIL directing the Petitioner to file appropriate application before a competent authority 11 13.08.2019 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order in Civil PIL dismissing the PIL stating that this is a frivolous PIL 12 06.12.2024 Order passed by the learned MM Court rejecting the Complaint on the ground that it is not fit case and the Complainant has not complied with mandate of S. 154(3) of Cr.PC.
13 25.01.2018 Hon'ble Bombay High Court's Order disposing off the Criminal PIL filed by Petitioner stating that they are not obliged to entertain the PIL unless a complete mechanism is available in approaching the police station.
14 25.09.2018 Order of Appellate Authority (SEBI) under Appellate file under RTI Act remanding back the Appeals to CPIO, SEBI for de novo consideration of the queries 15 03.01.2024 Order of Appellate Authority (SEBI) under Appellate file under RTI Act upholding the decision of SEBI 16 03.05.2023 Order of Appellate Authority (SEBI) under Appellate file under RTI Act upholding the decision of SEBI 17 Cases filed by Sapan Shrivastava (Original Side) in Hon'ble Bombay High Court 18 Cases filed by Sapan Shrivastava (Criminal Side) in Hon'ble Bombay High Court 8
5. Adverting to the second case, Shri Kapadia submitted that it was against the then Chairman, SEBI, wherein the learned SEBI Special Judge has held that applicant did not make out any case of contempt of court and it was rejected. In the third case, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the reliefs sought in the PIL were nothing but the consequences of stopping the passengers using luggage cabins and there cannot be any disciplinary action against the officials who had implemented the rules and regulations. Therefore, the question of paying compensation to such persons did not arise. With these observations, the writ petition was dismissed as also the review petition. The fifth order is by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dismissing the petition with costs of ₹25,000 holding that "the petitioner desires unregulated entry of people to the building, where SEBI functions and no such direction can be issued". The sixth order is by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal holding that the PIL was being dismissed as punishment for gross abuse of process of court with a cost of ₹5 Lakhs with a further direction to the registry not to entertain any petition filed by the appellant in future unless he filed the proof of payment of costs. Shri Kapadia also referred to remaining orders/proceedings and contended that the prayer made by the appellant for waiver of the court fees does not merit any consideration as the appellant is a habitual litigant and is liable to be dismissed.
6. We may record that the prayers made in this appeal are inter alia to set the criminal law into motion and to direct SEBI to conduct investigation. Appellants' case is, that they had filed 9 complaints on the SEBI-SCORES platform and sent emails to NSE, BSE, SEBI Chairperson. But no action has been taken on their complaints.
7. Presently, we are concerned with these miscellaneous applications for waiver of fees.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the appellant and learned Senior Advocate for SEBI.
9. It is stated in the application that appellant is a small investor with share value of less than ₹5000 and he is seeking justice for violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and
21. It is further pleaded that there is no order passed by the adjudicating officer or the Board and therefore, no fees is payable. Appellant has cited P. K.Pande v. State of M.P. and Ors1, Mangal Singh and Ors v. Haridial Singh and Ors2, A.A. Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways3and few other authorities.
10. We may record that appellant desires to prosecute this appeal under Section 15T of the SEBI's Act. SAT rules require payment of ₹5,000 as fees. Appellant has not pointed out any provision for waiver of fees.
11. Further, the list of proceedings initiated by the appellant before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and others and the orders passed thereon leads to an inference that appellant has initiated several proceedings in different fora. He has not pointed out any 1 2000 (2) MPHT 455 2 AIR 2007 P H 203 3 (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 736 10 specific provision to waive the court fee. So long as the provision requiring an appellant to pay the court fee is on the statute book, appellant's plea for waiver of court fees does not merit any consideration.
12. However, appellant is granted one opportunity to pay the court fees within an outer limit of eight weeks from today. In the result, the following:
ORDER i. Miscellaneous applications are dismissed with liberty to pay the court fee contained in paragraph 12 above. ii. No costs.
Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member Digitally signed RAJALA byRAJALAKSHMI 09.01.2026 KSHMI HDate:
NAIR RHN H NAIR 2026.01.09 13:40:43 +05'30'