SEBI v. Goldline International Finvest Limited and others (IPO subscription funding, ECO Friendly Food Processing Park, 2022)

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; 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-61417-market-abuse-2022) by email

In July 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised Rs 6 lakh each on seventeen noticees in the ECO Friendly Food Processing Park IPO case, with extra penalties on the company and Goldline for other breaches. The order finds that connected firms financed IPO applicants so the issue reached its minimum subscription.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	SEBI (India)
Date filed	2022-07-29
Date resolved	2022-07-29
Court	SEBI adjudicating officer
Status	judgment
Asset class	equities
Instruments	ECO Friendly Food Processing Park Limited shares (2012-13 SME IPO)
Venue	BSE SME
Criminal parallel	No
Defendants	Goldline International Finvest Limited (entity) ; Madhukar Dubey (individual) ; Satendra Kumar (individual) ; Sumit Kumar (individual) ; Columbia Sales (entity) ; Mohan Garg (individual) ; Ram Prakash (individual) ; Avisha Credit Capital Private Limited (entity) ; AMS Powertronic Private Limited (entity) ; Prakash Gupta (individual) ; LMR Green Realty Private Limited (entity) ; Lithmus Capital Consultance Limited (entity)
Also named elsewhere	AMS Powertronic Private Limited is named in 1 other matter ; Avisha Credit Capital Private Limited is named in 1 other matter ; Goldline International Finvest Limited is named in 3 other matters
Techniques

What was ordered

Civil penalty: —
Disgorgement: —
Prejudgment interest: —
Total relief: —
Alleged gain: —

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.

What is alleged to have happened

The order of 29 July 2022 concerns the IPO of ECO Friendly Food Processing Park Limited, which raised Rs 756 lakh through 30,24,000 shares at Rs 25 each and listed on the BSE SME segment on 14 January 2013. It names eighteen noticees, among them the company, its directors, the financier Goldline International Finvest Limited, and several individuals and proprietorships, and only the first twelve are listed here.

SEBI alleged that entities linked to the company, directly or indirectly, supplied money to the people who applied in the IPO, with funds moving between the company, Goldline and a web of proprietorships and companies. It said this was a fraudulent scheme to reach the minimum subscription and charged it under section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations, together with ICDR, information and listing-agreement breaches.

The adjudicating officer found that the company reached its minimum subscription only through the scheme operated with the other noticees. Fraud penalties of Rs 6,00,000 were set on seventeen noticees, including the financier Goldline, the company, three directors or promoters and the provider firms, with Rs 5,00,000 each on Goldline and the company under section 15A(a) for failing to provide information, and Rs 2,00,000 on the company under section 23E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act.

The company's Rs 2,00,000 under that last provision is payable only according to the outcome of a pending Supreme Court appeal in another matter. Because of that condition this record does not state a single total. Several noticees had been penalised in earlier IPO orders, which the officer treated as repeat conduct. Ace Consultant and Neeraj Mittal are not in the penalty table.

The record does not show whether the penalties were paid or appealed, how many applicants were funded or the sums involved overall, or why two noticees carry no penalty.

This library tags the matter as no specific technique, because the finding is an IPO subscription-funding scheme that no library technique page covers directly. 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

2022-07-29 SEBI adjudication order (29 July 2022)

Primary documents

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

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.