SEBI v. Arnav Corporation Ltd and others (funding of preferential allottees, 2023)
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 February 2023 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised Arnav Corporation, two directors and six allottees a combined Rs 20 lakh for a Rs 84 crore preferential issue in December 2013 in which the company funded Rs 51.15 crore of the subscription itself through suppliers and others. A seventh allottee was not penalised because it had been struck off.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2023-02-28 |
| Date resolved | 2023-02-28 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Arnav Corporation shares (preferential allotment of 4 crore shares) |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Arnav Corporation Limited ; Dhiren Negandhi ; Jayesh Shah ; Adamina Traders Pvt Ltd ; Anumita Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ; Aprateem Trading Pvt Ltd ; Orange Mist Productions Pvt Ltd ; Parkway Properties Pvt Ltd ; Radford Real Estate Pvt Ltd |
| Also named elsewhere | Adamina Traders Pvt. Ltd. ; Orange Mist Productions Pvt Ltd |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 2m INR
What is alleged to have happened
This adjudication order of 28 February 2023 was made by SEBI adjudicating officer Vijayant Kumar Verma. The noticees are Arnav Corporation Ltd, a Mumbai publishing company listed on BSE whose shares are now suspended, its directors Dhiren Negandhi and Jayesh Shah, and seven allottees: Adamina Traders, Anumita Infrastructure, Aprateem Trading, Bulltext Reality, Orange Mist Productions, Parkway Properties and Radford Real Estate.
On 10 December 2013 the company allotted 4,00,00,000 shares at Rs 21 each, an issue of Rs 84 crore, to 13 allottees. SEBI investigated 15 March 2013 to 31 March 2014 and alleged that the company, with its directors, funded the seven allottees by routing money through its suppliers and other entities, giving an impression of capital infusion while actual infusion was limited. It charged breaches of section 12A of the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations 3 and 4(1).
The officer found the company and its directors had devised the scheme and that the seven allottees had benefited from it, with Rs 51.15 crore routed to the allottees in this way. He rejected the noticees' arguments of delay and pandemic hardship as grounds for leniency, but accepted them as mitigating factors. Bulltext was found to have been struck off from the corporate register, and no penalty was imposed on it.
The penalties under section 15HA were Rs 6,00,000 on the company and Mr Negandhi jointly and severally, Rs 2,00,000 on Mr Shah and Rs 2,00,000 on each of six allottees, which sums to Rs 20 lakh.
The record does not show whether the order was appealed, how much of the allotment money was ever real, or any criminal case.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure, because the order finds the issuer gave a false impression of capital raised. 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
- 2023-02-28 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.