Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
Sudhansu Sekhar Pati - Petitioner
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai & Ors. - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22355 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Janakalyana Mohanty, Adv.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Tapesh Roy, Advocate, Mr. Rajjeet Roy, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Sagar, Advocate
The absence of specific findings linking a director's personal liability to company misconduct requires pursuit of statutory remedies rather than judicial intervention under Article 226.
Headnote:(A) SEBI Act, 1992 - Section 28A - Income-tax Act, 1961 - Challenge to attachment of personal bank and trading accounts following regulatory action against Seashore Securities Limited - The petitioner contends that the action is without jurisdiction and violates natural justice, as no specific findings were recorded against him. The Court, however, determines that personal liability cannot solely arise from designation without role-specific evidence but acknowledges the collective management's conduct under SEBI regulations. The availability of alternative remedies is highlighted, and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, leaving all arguments open for consideration in an appropriate forum. (Paras 1-16)
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that there is no basis to interfere with the impugned orders, and the petitioner should seek remedies available under the SEBI Act. (Paras 12, 15)
Issues: Whether the attachment of accounts is sustained given the petitioner's limited role and lack of specific findings against him by the regulator. (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The principle that personal liability must be supported by specific findings related to a director's role in company misconduct was upheld, alongside the necessity of pursuing statutory remedies before the appropriate tribunal. (Paras 10, 16)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of, directing the petitioner to avail himself of the statutory remedy.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of attachments and petitioner’s involvement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s arguments against the jurisdiction of sebi's actions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court’s analysis on regulatory authority findings and judicial review limitations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. discussion on the availability of an alternative remedy under sebi act. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. court’s conclusion to decline the writ petition. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition is challenging the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the consequential attachment notices dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 28A of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the petitioner’s personal bank accounts as well as Demat and trading accounts have been attached.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Seashore Securities Limited is a public company incorporated on 25.04.2008 and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Odisha.
(ii) Mr. Prashanta Kumar Dash is the promoter and Managing Director of Seashore Securities Limited. The petitioner was employed with M/s. NAD Pvt. Ltd. at its Raipur Head Office since the year 2007.
(iii) The petitioner was appointed as a Director of Seashore Securities Limited on 29.10.2008.
(iv) The petitioner resigned from the post of Director on 03.02.2012. The said resignation was approved in the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting held on 05.03.2012 and was filed before the Registrar of Companies, Cuttack on 02.04.2012.
(v) An interim order bearing No. WTM/PS/23/ERO/BLO/JULY/2014 dated 23.07.2014 was passed by Opposite Party No.1, namely the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and was served upon the petitioner on 24.08.2014.
(vi) Upon receipt of the said interim order, the petitioner submitted his objections, which were received by Opposite Party No.1 on 04.09.2014.
(vii) Thereafter, another order bearing No. WTM/PS/84/ERO/BLO/MAR/2015 dated 18.03.2015 was passed by Opposite Party No.1.
(viii) Subsequently, Opposite Party No.1 passed a final order bearing No. WTM/MPB/EFD-1-DRA-IV/43/2018 dated 24.09.2018.
(ix) Pursuant to the final order dated 24.09.2018, recovery proceedings were initiated and Certificate No. RC-3151 of 2020 was issued under Section 28A of the SEBI Act, 1992.
(x) In furtherance thereof, attachment proceedings bearing Nos. 6832 and 6833 of 2021 were initiated by the Recovery Officer.
(xi) Consequential attachment notices dated 13.04.2023 were issued, whereby the petitioner’s savings bank accounts maintained with Axis Bank Ltd., Jagatpur Branch, Cuttack, Odisha and Bank of India, Raipur Main Branch, Chhattisgarh, as well as the Demat and trading accounts maintained with Axis Securities Ltd. (Axis Direct), were attached.
(xii) The allegation against Seashore Securities Limited and its directors pertained to the alleged issue of Redeemable Preference Shares (RPS) without compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, the SEBI Act, 1992, and the rules and regulations framed thereunder, including the SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 and the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009.
(xiii) Aggrieved by the final order dated 24.09.2018 and the consequential attachment notices dated 13.04.2023, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The petitioner contended that the impugned action of Opposite Party No.1 in attaching his personal savings bank accounts as well as Demat and trading accounts is without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the objections filed by him were not
