SEBI v. Ankur Agarwal (Arvind Remedies, misstated accounts, 2023)

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-70700-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2023) by email

In April 2023 a SEBI whole-time member found that a former executive director of Arvind Remedies let himself become part of a scheme to inflate the company's sales and profits, in breach of the anti-fraud rules. He was barred from the market for six months and fined Rs 5,00,000.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

500k 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

This final order was issued on 28 April 2023 by S. K. Mohanty, a whole-time member of SEBI. The only noticee is Ankur Agarwal, who served as an executive director of Arvind Remedies Ltd for roughly three years in 2012 to 2014. The company's shares were listed on Indian exchanges.

The case began with a forensic audit report passed on by Punjab National Bank and two investor complaints. SEBI issued an interim order in February 2017 against the company and its managing director and then investigated whether the accounts for the years to March 2011 through 2015 were manipulated and whether promoters sold shares while holding undisclosed information. It found, among other things, that the company inflated purchases and sales with connected entities, routed payments in circles without any movement of goods, and kept different sets of financial statements for different audiences.

The order concludes that Mr Agarwal, through inaction and what it calls turning a blind eye, joined the managing director's scheme of filing manipulated figures with the exchanges. The order says the scheme let promoters and connected entities sell shares and avoid losses of approximately Rs 164 crore, a figure drawn from the show cause notice and the earlier order in the matter, and holds that this breached the PFUTP Regulations, 2003.

SEBI restrained him from accessing the securities market or dealing in securities for six months, froze his existing holdings during that time while allowing pending settlements and open derivatives positions to be closed out, and imposed a penalty of Rs 5,00,000 under section 15HA, payable within 45 days.

The order is an administrative sanction. It finds the director liable through his office rather than as the author of the inflated accounts, and the Rs 164 crore figure is a loss avoided by others, not a gain attributed to him. The record does not show whether he appealed, whether the penalty was paid, or any criminal case.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure. 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

1. 2023-04-28 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.

• SEBI order
• Order (PDF)

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.