SEBI v. Adamina Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Secunderabad Healthcare price rise, 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-58840-price-manipulation-2022) by email

On 10 May 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer fined Adamina Traders Rs 10 lakh for buying Secunderabad Healthcare shares in tiny lots that pushed up the last traded price during a 2013 rally. The order follows an earlier whole-time member order against the same company.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

1m 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

A SEBI adjudicating officer, Prasanta Mahapatra, decided the matter on 10 May 2022. The sole noticee was Adamina Traders Pvt Ltd, a company that traded Secunderabad Healthcare Ltd. SEBI had investigated after a sharp price rise in the scrip. Over the investigation period of November 2011 to January 2015 the price opened near Rs 6, touched a high of Rs 33.6 in February 2013 and ended near Rs 2.9.

SEBI alleged that between 14 May and 24 October 2013, a price-rise patch, Adamina contributed significantly to upward movement in the last traded price. According to the order, Adamina was the leading contributor among the top ten net positive buyers in that patch, supplying about 68 per cent of the total market positive price movement. Of its 554 buying trades that lifted the price, 386 were for a single share, and the matching sell orders disclosed were large. The charge was breach of Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 fraudulent and unfair trade practices regulations.

The officer found the violations established and noted that a whole-time member of SEBI had already held the company guilty in separate proceedings, a decision the Securities Appellate Tribunal had dealt with on appeal. Following a Tribunal ruling in P G Electroplast, the directions from those proceedings were taken into account when setting the penalty. The officer reasoned that repeated tiny upward trades gave a false impression of demand at higher prices and could draw other investors in.

The penalty was Rs 10,00,000 (Rs 10 lakh) under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, payable within 45 days. The order found no past action against Adamina and no quantified gain or investor loss.

The record does not show how the shares were later sold, who counterparties were, or whether the penalty was appealed.

This library tags the matter as price manipulation. 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.

• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-05-10 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.

• SEBI order

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

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.