The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) allowed Chaubara Eats and Prrsaar Sampada to operate their accounts and sell securities in a cross-segment manipulation case, but directed them to deposit ₹10 crore as a condition. SEBI had sought to impound ₹28.12 crore as alleged unlawful gains. SAT declined to record a finding on the exact unlawful gain amount, noting the investigation remains ongoing. The order balances investor protection with the entities' right to conduct business during the pendency of proceedings.

This case illustrates how SAT functions as a check on SEBI's interim powers — specifically the power to impound proceeds of alleged fraud under Regulation 11 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules and Section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992.

Cross-segment manipulation refers to a scheme where traders artificially influence prices in one market segment (say, the cash equity segment) to profit from positions held in another segment (such as derivatives or commodities). SEBI investigates such schemes under its fraud and unfair trade practices regulations.

When SEBI issues an ex-parte ad-interim order freezing accounts and impounding funds, the affected party can appeal to SAT under Section 15T of the SEBI Act. SAT can modify, set aside, or impose alternate conditions — as it did here, substituting the full ₹28.12 crore impoundment with a ₹10 crore deposit requirement.

The tribunal's refusal to record a finding on unlawful gains is procedurally significant: it signals that at the interim stage, the court will not prejudge the merits. This principle — that interim orders must not pre-decide guilt — is a recurring theme in securities law adjudication.

For exam purposes, understand the hierarchy: SEBI (investigation and order) → SAT (appeal) → Supreme Court (further appeal under Section 15Z). Also note that SAT is a statutory tribunal, not a civil court.