Authority: Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India

Order Date: October 07, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Sandesh Ranjit Sakhalkar, filed an appeal (No. 7079 of 2026) against the response provided by the CPIO of SEBI to his RTI application dated February 12, 2026. The application sought information regarding SEBI orders in the matter of M/s Networth Marketing Limited, specifically concerning the appellant's father, Ranjit Shrikrishna Sakhalkar, who was an affected investor. The appellant's first appeal was filed on September 09, 2026, which was beyond the statutory 30-day limit from the CPIO's response dated March 10, 2026. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal on merits despite the delay.

The RTI application sought five specific pieces of information:

1. Confirmation of whether Ranjit Shrikrishna Sakhalkar (PAN: BGIPxxxx, Address: 15 B Prabhukripa Opposite Jondhale School Shastrinagar Dombivli West Thane 421202) was included in the investor list referred to in SEBI orders in the Networth Marketing matter, with an approximate investment of ₹200,000 in 2015.

2. Relationship proof (documents were attached)

3. Current refund recovery status for his father, including whether refund has been paid, date and mode of payment if paid, or amount pending if not paid

4. Procedure and required documents to claim refund for the investor or legal heirs

5. Contact details of the SEBI department/official responsible for investor refund recovery in this matter

The CPIO's response stated that:

  • For query 1: Ranjit Shrikrishna Sakhalkar's name was present in the investor list submitted by Networth Marketing Limited
  • For query 2: No information was sought
  • For queries 3, 4 & 5: Pursuant to the WTM Order dated July 30, 2018, the company had submitted that ₹100,000 (₹50,000 + ₹50,000) was paid by cash to Ranjit Shrikrishna Sakhalkar. Recovery proceedings are under process, and when refund to investors is initiated, eligible investors will be intimated along with the claim process and SEBI contact point.

The appellant filed the appeal on the ground that he was provided incomplete, misleading or false information.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority found that the respondent (CPIO) had adequately addressed the queries by providing available information and found no deficiency in the response. The authority also noted that an information seeker cannot expand the scope of an RTI enquiry at the appeal stage, citing the Harish Prasad Divedi vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited case (January 28, 2014). The appeal was dismissed with no interference in the CPIO's decision.

Topics: RTI Appeal, Investor Refunds, SEBI Compliance