SEBI v. Rajinder Singh (MPS Infotechnics GDR issue, 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-70708-market-abuse-2023) by email

In April 2023 a SEBI whole-time member re-decided, after a tribunal remand, the case of Rajinder Singh over the 2007 GDR issue of MPS Infotechnics, finding him part of a fraudulent scheme and restraining him from the securities market for five years.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

This is a final order by a SEBI whole-time member, Ananta Barua, passed under sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act. It concerns one noticee, Rajinder Singh, who sat on the board of MPS Infotechnics Ltd. (formerly Visesh Infotechnics), a company listed on the BSE. The order was issued because the Securities Appellate Tribunal had quashed SEBI's earlier March 2020 order against him for lack of service of the show cause notice and sent the matter back for a fresh decision. The text of the order carries the date April 28, 2022, but it refers to events in January 2023, and the library uses the publication date of 28 April 2023.

SEBI alleged that in December 2007 MPS issued 4.65 million global depository receipts worth about USD 9.99 million, listed in Singapore, and that a single subscriber, Clifford Capital Partners, took the whole issue with money borrowed from a Lisbon bank. MPS allegedly pledged the issue proceeds as security for that loan under an account charge agreement that Mr Singh signed for the company, so the money was never freely available to MPS. SEBI said MPS did not tell the BSE about these agreements, announced the issue as successfully subscribed, and diverted about USD 8.90 million of the proceeds. The charges were under section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations 2003.

The order deals with procedural objections, including document inspection and the long gap since 2007, and rejects them. On the merits it finds that Mr Singh attended the board meeting that approved the Banco account and authorised him to operate it, and that he later signed the charge agreement, so his involvement in the scheme was clear. It rejects his reliance on an auditor certificate, noting that the first repayment from the pledged account came after the certificate date. It finds him in violation of section 12A(a), (b) and (c) and Regulations 3(a)-(d) and 4(1).

The direction is a five-year restraint from accessing or dealing in the securities market, with existing holdings frozen and the period already served between March 2020 and December 2021 set off. No monetary penalty is imposed in this order. It notes that a separate adjudication, over the same conduct, had imposed Rs 20 lakh, which the tribunal reduced to Rs 10 lakh in January 2023 on grounds of parity with the managing director.

The record does not show whether Mr Singh appealed this order again, whether any proceeds were recovered, or what any investors lost.

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 whole-time member final order on remand

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
• SEBI 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.