SEBI v. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. and others (IPO fraud and alleged self-trades, 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-59890-wash-trading-2022) by email

In June 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised four people tied to Resurgere Mines and Minerals, a company whose 2008 IPO proceeds were found to have been diverted and a bridge loan left out of the prospectus. Allegations of wash trading against 17 brokers in the same notice were not established, and the case against the company was disposed of because it is in insolvency.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

3.7m 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

An adjudicating officer of SEBI issued this order on 21 June 2022 on a show cause notice of 5 October 2021 naming 24 noticees. Seven were the company, Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. (RMMIL), and its directors and officers; the other 17 were stockbroking firms, among them OPG Securities, Matrix Equitrade, H J Securities, Motilal Oswal Securities and Magnum Equity Broking. The matter covered the company's IPO of August 2008 and trading in its shares in September 2008.

SEBI alleged that applicants in the employee category were indirectly funded by the company, and that about Rs 113.77 crore of the Rs 120 crore raised was siphoned to group companies rather than used for the stated objects. It also alleged that a Rs 18 crore inter-corporate deposit taken on 13 August 2008 was not disclosed in the prospectus, that the company ignored SEBI summons, and that the 17 brokers had executed self-trades creating artificial volume.

The adjudicating officer disposed of the proceedings against the company without a penalty because it was in insolvency with a moratorium in force. The officer found the fraud and disclosure violations established against four people, the chairman and managing director Subash Sharma, whole-time director Amit Sharma, the chief financial officer Harish Khaitan and the compliance officer Rakesh Gupta. The order found no violation proved against the 17 brokers, because their self-trades were a small share of volume and no manipulative intent was shown. The two non-executive directors were not penalised.

The penalties were Rs 15,00,000 on Subash Sharma, Rs 15,00,000 on Amit Sharma, Rs 5,00,000 on Harish Khaitan and Rs 2,00,000 on Rakesh Gupta, a total of Rs 37,00,000, payable within 45 days. The officer said no quantifiable gain or investor loss could be established.

The record does not show whether the money siphoned was recovered, whether any appeal was filed, or the status of the insolvency. The order does not mention a criminal case.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure (the wash-trading allegation against the brokers was not established). 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

1. 2022-06-21 SEBI adjudication 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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.