SAT directs OPG to deposit ₹2.5 crore, stays Sebi's ₹85 crore order
Tribunal admits appeal against Sebi's revised disgorgement in NSE case and stays recovery subject to OPG depositing Rs 2.5 crore within four weeks in an interest-bearing account
 "SAT directs OPG to deposit ₹2.5 crore, stays Sebi's ₹85 crore order")
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has directed OPG Securities to deposit ₹2.5 crore, while staying the recovery of a total disgorgement amount of ₹85.25 crore ordered by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).
The tribunal's order, dated June 30, states: "There shall be a stay of recovery of the disgorgement amount pursuant to the impugned order, subject to the appellants depositing a sum of ₹2.5 crore within four weeks from today, subject to the outcome of this appeal. Sebi shall place the same in an interest-bearing account."
The matter has been admitted by the tribunal, which has directed Sebi to file its response. The recent order pertains only to the recovery amount.
In April 2019, the market regulator had directed disgorgement of ₹15.57 crore against the firm. OPG Securities had earlier deposited ₹7.5 crore, which was half of the initial disgorgement amount. ALSO READ: Sebi issues Rs 5.35 crore demand notice to OPG securities in NSE case
In January 2023, the tribunal upheld the violations committed by OPG but set aside the Sebi order and remanded it back for fresh calculation of the disgorgement amount.
In the NSE colocation matter, OPG was alleged to have gained an unfair advantage by accessing the secondary server of the stock exchange and making unlawful gains. In a fresh order, Sebi revised the disgorgement amount to ₹85.25 crore.
The counsel for OPG argued that there can be no increase in the disgorgement amount after remand.
The tribunal noted that this was a peculiar case in which Sebi had conducted further investigation covering a different and longer period, on the basis of which a fresh show-cause notice was issued.
The SAT order states, "In view of the undisputed fact that the appellants have subjected themselves and participated in the second round of litigation fully, in our view, they are not entitled to a blanket stay order."