SEBI v. Arun Panchariya (Nakoda Ltd 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-74783-market-abuse-2023) by email

On 31 July 2023 a SEBI adjudicating officer, after a tribunal remand, penalised Arun Panchariya Rs 50 lakh over the November 2010 loan-funded GDR issue of Nakoda Ltd, which SEBI said was presented to the market without disclosing the pledge of proceeds.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

5m 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

A SEBI adjudicating officer, Vijayant Kumar Verma, issued this order on 31 July 2023 against Arun Panchariya in the matter of disclosures by Nakoda Ltd about its GDR issue. A show cause notice had been issued in January 2018 and an August 2022 order imposed a Rs 50 lakh penalty, but the Securities Appellate Tribunal quashed it in March 2023 because the noticee had been heard without being served, and remitted the matter.

The order records that Nakoda issued 2,000,000 GDRs worth about USD 24.25 million, roughly Rs 108 crore, on 26 November 2010, with Vintage FZE as the subscriber. The subscription money came from a bank loan against which the company's account was pledged. When the loan was not repaid, the bank took about USD 24.32 million from the company's account, which the company wrote off as a loss. SEBI alleged that the GDR issue was fraudulent and that Mr Panchariya, who controlled the subscriber, was a party to it.

The officer weighed his objections and found violations of section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations 2003, treating the case as one where shareholders bore a loss of about USD 24.32 million.

The penalty was Rs 50 lakh under section 15HA, payable within 45 days. No market restriction was imposed in this order.

The record does not show whether he appealed again or paid, or how much of the lost funds was recovered. Other orders against him on other issuers are catalogued separately.

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. 2023-07-31 SEBI adjudication 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.

Same matter

The library links these 9 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.