SAT rejects appeal of IndusInd's ex-deputy CEO to access probe records

Tribunal says IndusInd Bank's former deputy CEO Arun Khurana has already received documents relied upon by Sebi and cannot seek access to the entire dataset at this stage

The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by IndusInd Bank’s former deputy chief executive officer Arun Khurana seeking access to a broader set of investigation records from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) in an ongoing insider trading probe.

 

Khurana had challenged a December 17, 2025 communication from Sebi that asked him to appear for a personal hearing. He had also sought directions from the tribunal for full inspection and copies of documents referenced in Sebi’s examination report, as well as additional time to file his reply. 

The tribunal, however, ruled that Khurana had already been supplied with the documents relied upon by the regulator and that his request for access to the entire dataset collected during the investigation was not justified at the current stage of proceedings. 

 

“The settled position is, a noticee shall be entitled for the relevant material at the stage of adjudication. Since the matter has not reached the adjudication stage, in our opinion, appellant’s prayer for the entire data does not merit consideration,” a bench comprising Presiding Officer Justice PS Dinesh Kumar and technical members Meera Swarup and Dheeraj Bhatnagar said in its order dated March 5.

 

Khurana had argued that Sebi had relied on a selective set of emails and documents to issue an ex parte interim order against him, and that access to the entire set of materials in the regulator’s possession would help him demonstrate that the conclusions drawn were incorrect.

 

Sebi’s counsel told the tribunal that the regulator had collected an “email dump” of around 1.7 terabytes from IndusInd Bank, comprising backups of emails belonging to 26 officials and 14 generic email accounts. He said the dataset was searched using keyword filters to identify relevant communications, and the emails relied upon in the interim order were shared with the appellant along with inspection opportunities.