SAT Mumbai Refuses ₹2.25 Crore Monthly Withdrawal Plea; Holds Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Final Order

February 16, 2026 : The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Mumbai, has dismissed a miscellaneous application filed by Avadhut Sathe Trading Academy Pvt. Ltd. and its directors seeking continuation of interim relief permitting monthly withdrawals of ₹2.25 crore for operational expenses, holding that such relief cannot survive after final disposal of the appeal.

The Tribunal, comprising Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar (Presiding Officer) and Technical Member Ms. Meera Swarup, ruled that once an appeal is finally decided, interim orders merge with the final judgment and cannot be revived through a miscellaneous application.

The application arose from earlier proceedings initiated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) through an ex parte interim order-cum-show cause notice dated 4 December 2025 against the academy for allegedly offering unregistered investment advisory services. The appellants had challenged this before SAT in Appeal No. 545 of 2025.

At the interim stage, the Tribunal had permitted withdrawal of ₹2.25 crore for immediate operational expenses. Subsequently, by its final order dated 22 January 2026, SAT partly allowed the appeal and reduced SEBI’s deposit requirement from ₹546.16 crore to ₹100 crore.

Following disposal of the appeal, the appellants moved the present miscellaneous application seeking continuation of the withdrawal facility, citing expenses such as salaries, electricity bills and legal costs, and indicating their intention to approach the Supreme Court.

Opposing the plea, SEBI argued that the Tribunal had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to pass further orders. It also highlighted non-compliance by the appellants with earlier directions, including failure to file an affidavit disclosing assets and continued display of prohibited promotional testimonials.

Accepting SEBI’s objections, the Tribunal held that:

• The appeal had already been finally disposed of, leaving no scope for further directions.
• Interim relief granted earlier stood merged with the final order.
• Allowing continued withdrawals would effectively amount to reviewing or modifying the final judgment.
• Miscellaneous applications cannot be used to alter concluded decisions except in narrowly defined circumstances.

The bench relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, to emphasise that judicial pronouncements attain finality and cannot be modified indirectly through post-disposal applications.

The Tribunal also noted that the appellants had failed to comply with its earlier direction to disclose assets and that granting further relief would undermine the modified deposit requirement of ₹100 crore.

Holding the application not maintainable, the Tribunal dismissed it without costs, reiterating that it had become functus officio and that the prayer for continued withdrawal of funds did not merit consideration.

Case Title: Avadhut Sathe Trading Academy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. SEBI
Case No.: Misc. Application No. 131 of 2026 in Appeal No. 545 of 2025