SEBI v. Rajinder Singh (MPS Infotecnics GDR scheme, 2022)
Judgment entered
Checked against the primary document on October 8, 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; a later sample of 50 of the SEBI records added on 9 October agreed on every field for 46. 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.
On 4 May 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer fined Rajinder Singh Rs 20 lakh for his part in a global depository receipt issue by MPS Infotecnics in which the proceeds were pledged as security for loans to others. The order finds he signed the account charge agreement that made the scheme possible.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-05-04 |
| Date resolved | 2022-05-04 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Global Depository Receipts of MPS Infotecnics Ltd |
| Venue | BSE, Singapore Exchange |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Rajinder Singh ; MPS Infotecnics Limited |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 2m INR
What is alleged to have happened
A SEBI adjudicating officer, G Ramar, decided the matter on 4 May 2022. The sole noticee was Rajinder Singh, a non-executive director of MPS Infotecnics Ltd (earlier Visesh Infotecnics), which had issued global depository receipts (GDRs) in November and December 2007. The proceedings were under section 15HA of the SEBI Act for alleged fraud under section 12A and Regulations 3 and 4(1) of the 2003 fraudulent and unfair trade practices regulations.
SEBI alleged that the company's GDR issue was not backed by genuine consideration. Proceeds were held at a Lisbon bank, Banco Efisa, under an account charge agreement that let the bank use the money as security for loans to a third party. SEBI said the company did not tell the Bombay Stock Exchange about that agreement, the later delisting of the GDRs from the Singapore exchange or the end of the depositary facility, and did not show a contingent liability of about US$8.88 million in its 2007-08 accounts. SEBI said this misled investors into thinking the issue had been genuinely subscribed by foreign investors.
The order records that a board resolution of October 2007 authorised the account at Banco Efisa and the use of the deposit as security, and that Mr Singh signed the account charge agreement for the company. He argued that he was a non-executive, independent director who had only been invited to a meeting, was in London at the time and did not understand what he signed. The officer rejected those defences and found the alleged violations established, noting an earlier SEBI order that had held the company's directors to have aided the scheme.
The officer noted that no figure was available for any gain or investor loss, and imposed a penalty of Rs 20,00,000 (Rs 20 lakh) on Mr Singh under section 15HA, payable within 45 days.
The record does not show any profit or loss figure, whether Mr Singh appealed, or how other directors were treated in separate orders. SEBI imposes penalties and sanctions; it did not convict anyone here.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure. 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.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.
- Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2022-05-04 SEBI order
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.