SEBI v. Arvind Remedies Ltd and others (inflated sales and promoter share sales, 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-62339-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2022) by email

A SEBI whole-time member found that Arvind Remedies inflated its sales and profits with fictitious dealings with connected entities over five to six years while its promoters and their associates sold shares at the inflated price. He ordered disgorgement and gave 43 noticees penalties of about Rs 4.6 crore in total and market bars of six months to eight years.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

46.1m 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

The final order was issued on 24 August 2022 by a whole-time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India after a long investigation. It followed a forensic audit report forwarded by Punjab National Bank in 2015 and two investor complaints. The noticees were Arvind Remedies Limited, its chief executive and directors, its promoter Arvind Kumar B Shah and a large group of promoter-connected companies and individuals, and 25 individuals and entities who received promoter shares and later sold them. One further noticee was let off with a cautionary advice.

SEBI alleged that between financial years 2011 and 2015 the company recorded sales and purchases that did not correspond to actual deliveries of goods, using entities connected to or controlled by the promoters, and so reported inflated sales and profits. It alleged that the promoters and connected entities, holding that unpublished truth, sold shares at the inflated price, and that the 25 recipients helped them offload shares through the exchange and then returned the proceeds.

The order finds the sales and profit figures were manipulated and that losses of about Rs 164 crore were avoided by the selling noticees. It finds breaches of the PFUTP Regulations and, for the promoter side, the insider trading provisions, and notes that the scheme ran for five to six years.

The sanctions are restraints on market access: eight years for the company and Mr Shah, three years for most of the connected promoter entities, one year for three directors and officers, and six months for most share recipients. Monetary penalties under sections 15HA, 15HB, 15G and 15A(b) total about Rs 4.61 crore, of which Mr Shah bears Rs 1 crore. Thirteen noticees were also ordered to disgorge their wrongful gains with 8 percent interest, and Mr Shah to disgorge a further Rs 4.7 crore of managerial commission.

The record does not show whether anyone appealed, how much has been recovered, or the outcome of any parallel criminal case. The order describes none. The penalty total is this library's sum of the order's table.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure and insider trading. 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 2 techniques 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.
• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-08-24 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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.