The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) recently scrutinized the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) decision to impose a two-month ban on Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) from the capital markets. The case, titled Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd and Punit Goenka v. SEBI, was heard by a panel comprising Presiding Officer PS Dinesh Kumar and Technical Members Meera Swarup and Dheeraj Bhatnagar.
The tribunal raised pertinent questions regarding the reasoning behind SEBI’s decision to halt ZEEL’s proposed ₹3,143 crore capital raise for two months. Presiding Officer Kumar questioned SEBI on the rationality of permitting a transaction after two months if there is no illegality involved in the first place. He inquired, “If a thing which can be done after two months is not illegal, it is permissible by the regulator, and when the order was pending from December to August, you say that no, I will today stop, you can do it after two months. What is the logic?”
SEBI had barred Zee Entertainment and its CEO, Punit Goenka, from accessing the securities market on July 31, citing an improper disclosure case. In 2018, it was discovered that a land parcel in Hyderabad was used by ZEEL to secure loans for promoter-linked entities without board approval or adequate disclosure. Consequently, SEBI imposed a two-month ban on ZEEL and a 12-month ban on Goenka over alleged irregularities.
ZEEL and Goenka filed an appeal against the order at SAT, seeking an urgent stay until the appeal is resolved. Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, representing ZEEL, argued that SEBI’s order significantly hampers the company’s capital-raising plans. He noted that while the hearing concluded in December 2025, SEBI’s order was issued late at night on July 31 — coinciding with ZEEL shareholders’ approval of a ₹3,143-crore capital raise.
Kadam stated that the company’s board had sanctioned the issuance of fully convertible warrants to Sunbright Mauritius Investments, a promoter group entity. Under Regulation 170 of SEBI LODR Regulations, this fundraising must be completed within a 15-day window. He pointed out that SEBI’s order was served on August 1, just as this period began, risking irreversible impacts due to potential price fluctuations. Kadam further mentioned that the title deeds in question had been recovered, and the property was sold at a profit.
More Read
Additionally, Kadam requested the tribunal to ensure that market access restrictions do not prevent ZEEL from accessing its ₹1,200 crore in liquid mutual fund units necessary for daily business operations, receivables, and upcoming dividend payments.
Senior Advocate Pesi Modi, representing Punit Goenka, highlighted that 96 percent of public shareholders supported the capital raise resolution. He argued that the ₹3,143 crore influx benefits public investors. Modi expressed concern that SEBI’s late-night order caused ZEEL’s stock price to plummet and that a two-month delay would necessitate recalculating the issue price at a lower valuation, causing severe prejudice.
The tribunal questioned SEBI on the absence of fraud charges against ZEEL and why it was debarred if the capital raise is permissible after the debarment period. Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia, representing SEBI, defended the order, stating that debarment serves as deterrence, prevention, and punishment, and naturally restricts fundraising during the penalty period.
After deliberating the arguments, the appellate tribunal admitted the appeal, allowed SEBI six weeks to file its reply, and reserved its order on interim relief. Senior Advocates Ravi Kadam and Zal Andhyarujina, along with advocate Rohan Kadam, represented ZEEL, and Senior Advocate Pesi Modi represented Goenka. All were briefed by Nitesh Jain from Trilegal. Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia, representing SEBI, was briefed by The Law Point.
