SEBI v. Ejecta Marketing Ltd and others (misuse of preferential issue proceeds, 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.
In December 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised Ejecta Marketing and its four directors for telling shareholders that Rs 4.235 crore raised from a preferential share issue would strengthen the company, when about 92 percent of it was lent out to 21 entities. The order finds a fraud on the 49 allottees and shareholders.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-12-15 |
| Date resolved | 2022-12-15 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Ejecta Marketing shares (preferential issue) |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Ejecta Marketing Limited ; Tanumay Laha ; Sudip Laha ; Bhagwan Das Soni ; Kamal Kumar Bararia |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
This adjudication order of 15 December 2022 was made by SEBI adjudicating officer Asha Shetty. The noticees are Ejecta Marketing Limited (formerly Appu Marketing & Manufacturing Limited), a Kolkata trading company listed on BSE since 2014, and its four directors during the period examined: Tanumay Laha, Sudip Laha, Bhagwan Das Soni and Kamal Kumar Bararia.
After a preliminary look by the exchange BSE at how certain companies used issue money, SEBI investigated the period May 2013 to March 2014. The company had issued 42,35,000 shares on a preferential basis to non-promoter investors to raise Rs 4,23,50,000. SEBI alleged that Rs 3,91,50,000 of it went out as loans or deposits to 21 entities and only Rs 32,00,000 was used as working capital, while shareholders were told the money was for strengthening the equity base and expanding business. It charged breaches of section 12A of the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations 3 and 4, and for the company a listing-agreement breach.
The adjudicating officer held that the loans were not the stated object of the issue, that the proceeds had been misapplied in the proportion of 92.43 percent, and that investors had been induced by false and misleading statements, a fraud on the 49 allottees and on shareholders. None of the noticees replied to the notice, so the officer treated the charges as unchallenged. The order records that the company told SEBI during the investigation that it had recovered most of the loans with interest, and that some principal was never recovered. One director had an earlier SEBI penalty for misrepresenting financials in another company.
The penalties were Rs 5,00,000 on the company under section 15HA and another Rs 5,00,000 under section 23E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, the latter enforceable only depending on the outcome of a pending Supreme Court appeal in another matter. Each of the four directors was fined Rs 5,00,000 under section 15HA, jointly and severally. Because part of the company's penalty is conditional and the directors' penalty is joint, this record does not give a single total.
The record does not show whether the penalties were appealed or paid, or any criminal case.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure, because the company gave shareholders a false account of how issue money was used. 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
- 2022-12-15 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.