SEBI v. Nakoda Ltd and others (GDR issue and undisclosed pledge, 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.
A SEBI adjudicating officer fined Nakoda Ltd and four individuals a combined Rs 1.25 crore in August 2022 over a 2010 global depository receipt issue, finding that the company hid a pledge that let a foreign fund borrow against the GDR proceeds. Rs 5 lakh of the total hangs on a pending Supreme Court appeal.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-08-30 |
| Date resolved | 2022-08-30 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Nakoda Limited global depository receipts and shares |
| Venue | Luxembourg Stock Exchange, BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Nakoda Ltd ; D B Jain ; B G Jain ; Arun Pachariya ; Mukesh Chauradiya |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 12.5m INR
What is alleged to have happened
A SEBI adjudicating officer in Mumbai decided this matter on 30 August 2022. The noticees were the listed company Nakoda Ltd, its joint managing director D B Jain, B G Jain, and two individuals, Arun Pachariya (described as the beneficial owner behind Vintage) and Mukesh Chauradiya (Vintage's authorised representative and director).
SEBI's inquiry into Indian companies that issued GDRs abroad found that, for Nakoda's issue between November and December 2010, the entity Vintage FZE (also called Alta Vista International FZE) took a loan from Euram Bank. The company's GDR proceeds account stood as security for that loan under a pledge agreement signed by D B Jain. SEBI alleged this agreement was not disclosed to the stock exchanges, so investors were led to believe the GDRs had been genuinely subscribed by foreign investors, and that this was a fraud on the market under section 12A of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations. It also alleged breaches of listing-agreement conditions.
The order finds that Nakoda and Vintage ran a fraudulent scheme in the issue, that the GDRs were in effect sold without genuine subscription, and that the individual noticees were responsible to differing degrees. It also holds that the company broke the listing agreement's disclosure terms.
Penalties under section 15HA of the SEBI Act are Rs 25 lakh on Nakoda, Rs 20 lakh on D B Jain, Rs 15 lakh on B G Jain, Rs 50 lakh on Mr Pachariya and Rs 10 lakh on Mr Chauradiya. A further Rs 5 lakh on the company under section 23E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act is to be payable only depending on the Supreme Court's decision in a SEBI appeal about whether that provision applies to listing-agreement breaches. The total stated is thus Rs 1.25 crore, of which Rs 5 lakh is contingent. The officer notes SEBI had earlier acted against Mr Pachariya and Mr Chauradiya in similar GDR matters.
The record does not show how much money was actually raised or lost, whether the company's order was appealed, or how any investors fared; the officer notes no investor complaints and no quantified gain.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure (GDR issue with an undisclosed pledge). 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
- 2022-08-30 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.