When SEBI raided Avadhut Sathe Trading Academy (ASTA Gurukul) in August 2025, the market already knew this wasn’t going to be a small case. What followed was an ex parte interim order, a demand to secure ₹546 crore, freezing of bank accounts, and a complete bar from accessing the securities market.
Naturally, Avadhut Sathe and his academy knocked on the doors of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT).
On 22 January 2026, SAT finally spoke. Not a final order, but loud enough for the entire industry to hear.
Avadhut Sathe Penalty
In December 2025, SEBI passed an ex parte interim order against Avadhut Sathe Trading Academy (ASTA Gurukul). Bank accounts frozen. Market access blocked. And a direction to secure ₹546 crore.
SEBI’s position was blunt.
SEBI: “This is not just teaching. This is unregistered investment advice.”
Avadhut Sathe challenged this order before SAT, saying SEBI had acted in haste and without hearing them. SEBI wasn’t arguing theory. It relied on material seized during raids.
Avadhut Sathe’s Side of Story
Instead of getting into detailed stock-by-stock explanations, Sathe’s legal team focused on proportionality. Their key argument sounded more practical than legal.
At the time SEBI froze the accounts, the academy had only around ₹4 crore available in its bank accounts, a point highlighted to show the impracticality of SEBI’s ₹546 crore deposit demand.
Sathe’s Counsel: “How do we deposit ₹546 crore when accounts are frozen and the money has already been spent on taxes and assets?”
Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas (for Avadhut Sathe): “Your Lordships, this academy has existed since 2008. We are educators, not investment advisers.”
SAT: “Go on.”
Dwarkadas: “SEBI has violated our fundamental rights, Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. Without even hearing us, they raided our premises, seized devices, froze accounts, and demanded ₹546 crore.”
They pointed out that:
- The academy has existed since 2008
- Live data was used to demonstrate concepts
- Around ₹166 crore had already gone to the government as tax
- Nearly ₹100 crore was invested in fixed assets
The underlying message was clear: You can’t secure money that doesn’t exist in liquid form.
What did SEBI Reply to This?
Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia (for SEBI): “With respect, this is not just education.”
SAT: “Explain.”
Kapadia: “We are not acting on assumptions. We have evidence.”
And then SEBI laid out four pillars of its case:
According to the regulator:
- Live market data was shown during market hours
- Paid WhatsApp groups shared trade-related messages
- YouTube testimonials painted an unrealistic picture of profits
- Specific stocks, targets, and stop-loss levels were discussed
SEBI’s core belief was simple:
SEBI: “If your content influences trades, regulation applies, no matter what you call it.”
The Moment SAT Stepped In
SAT didn’t rush to conclusions. At one point, the tribunal made a critical observation:
SAT: “Investment Adviser and Research Analyst regulations have existed long before 2025.”
That single line quietly undercut the argument that rules were unclear before SEBI’s January 2025 circular.
But SAT was equally clear on another point:
SAT: “We are not deciding guilt today.”
What SAT Actually Agreed With?
SAT acknowledged that SEBI had valid reasons to intervene.
- Testimonials continued even after SEBI’s warning
- Live data and stock-specific commentary raise regulatory concerns
- Paid WhatsApp groups sharing trade levels cannot be ignored
In SAT’s words (in effect):
SAT: “SEBI has made out a prima facie case.”
That matters.
Where SAT Pulled SEBI Back?
At the same time, SAT wasn’t comfortable with the ₹546 crore figure.
The tribunal looked at the numbers more practically:
- Taxes already paid: ~₹166 crore
- Fixed assets: ~₹100 crore
Treating all ₹546 crore as money that could be siphoned didn’t sit well.
That led to the key modification.
The Final Direction
With these observations, SAT disposed off Avadhut Sathe’s appeal by granting limited interim relief while allowing SEBI’s proceedings to continue.
- Deposit reduced to ₹100 crore
- SAT restrained Avadhut Sathe and the academy from selling, transferring, or creating any third-party rights over fixed assets valued at approximately ₹100 crore.
- Full asset disclosure to be submitted
- Show-cause proceedings to continue
No clean chit. No case closure.
SAT also made it explicitly clear that its observations are limited to interim relief.
The tribunal stated that SEBI’s Whole Time Member will proceed independently and pass a final order, uninfluenced by anything said in this appeal.
What This Order Quietly Signals?
This order sends a message that many trading educators won’t like, but need to hear.
1. “Education” Is Not a Free Pass: Once live markets, stock names, and trade levels enter the picture, the regulator will look closely.
SAT (between the lines): “Labels don’t matter. Conduct does.”
2. Testimonials Are Riskier Than Charts: The strongest ammunition in SEBI’s case wasn’t technical analysis, it was marketing claims that didn’t match reality.
3. SEBI Can Be Checked, Not Ignored: SAT corrected excess, but it didn’t weaken SEBI’s authority. That balance is important.
Wrapping Up
Having followed scam cases, finfluencer crackdowns, and regulatory shifts for years, this order feels like a warning shot, not a verdict. Not just to Avadhut Sathe, but to the entire trading education ecosystem.
The grey zone is shrinking.
And the final SEBI order, whenever it comes, will decide much more than the fate of one academy.
