SEBI v. Madhukar Dubey and Magnum Industrial Corporation (Channel Nine Entertainment IPO funding, 2026)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 9, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the order; an independent second reading of 60 SEBI records agreed on every field for 56, the four misses being penalty amounts. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (sebi-104766-market-abuse-2026) by email

In September 2026, on remand from the Securities Appellate Tribunal, a SEBI adjudicating officer again found that Madhukar Dubey and his proprietorship Magnum Industrial Corporation were one of eight funding entities behind applications in the Channel Nine Entertainment SME IPO, and fined them Rs 5 lakh. The earlier joint penalty of Rs 8 lakh had been appealed on the ground that his documents were misused.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

500k INR

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars. This regulator states penalties in INR. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

This adjudication order of 28 September 2026 follows a remand. On 28 February 2022 an adjudicating officer penalised thirteen noticees in the IPO of Channel Nine Entertainment Limited, with Rs 8 lakh imposed jointly and severally on eight of them for a scheme to fund the IPO through connected funding group entities and ensure minimum subscription. Madhukar Dubey and his proprietorship Magnum Industrial Corporation appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, saying he was a driver whose credentials, including identity documents, had been misused by his employer, and that he had not known of the proceedings.

On 2 September 2025 the tribunal remitted the matter so that he could contest it, noting that his case in a related IPO had already been sent back. A new show cause notice was served, and the file passed to a new adjudicating officer in June 2026.

The officer considered his reply and the bank evidence, including bank accounts of Magnum Industrial and NV Sales Corporation opened with his documents, and concluded that he was one of eight funding group entities that funded IPO applicants of Channel Nine and connived with the company, its directors and other funders in a fraudulent scheme to get the IPO subscribed. The officer held that he violated Regulations 3(a) to (d) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations with section 12A of the SEBI Act. The listing was on the SME platform of the BSE.

In setting the penalty the officer noted that no gain or investor loss was quantified, but took into account earlier restraint orders and penalties against him in related IPO matters, including Rs 5 lakh, Rs 6 lakh and Rs 10 lakh in three other IPO orders. The penalty is Rs 5 lakh under section 15HA, payable within 45 days.

The record does not show whether he appealed again, whether the account opening was in fact unauthorised beyond the officer's rejection of that claim, or any criminal case.

This library applies no technique tag to the matter, because no technique, because the finding concerns funding of IPO applications to reach minimum subscription, which fits none of the library's techniques with confidence. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the order.

Timeline

1. 2026-09-28 SEBI adjudication order on remand

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEBI order

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.