SEBI v. Onelife Capital Advisors Ltd and others (related-party transactions, 2025)

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-7c18f946-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2025) by email

On 28 March 2025 a SEBI whole-time member found that Onelife Capital Advisors misrepresented its financials by booking sales and purchases with two related parties. Penalties on the company and eight officers total Rs 1,06,00,000 and the company and two promoters were restrained for a year.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

10.6m 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 whole-time member issued this final order on 28 March 2025, confirming and finalising an interim order and show cause notice of 21 October 2024. The nine noticees are Onelife Capital Advisors Limited, listed on BSE and NSE, promoters and directors Pandoo Naig and Prabhakara Naig, and six other officers and directors, including its chief financial officer and audit committee members. The period examined was April 2018 to March 2023.

SEBI began after an October 2022 complaint alleging diversion of funds and misstated financials, plus an NSE examination. It said revenues and professional-fee expenses surged once the company began booking transactions with two related parties; for four years all of its revenue and 92 percent of those expenses were with them, with no written agreements and little tax paid. SEBI also said a sum treated as a loan by the company was treated as income by the related broker and later re-labelled as capital work in progress after an NSE query.

The order upholds the misrepresentation charges under Regulation 4 of the PFUTP Regulations against the company and the two promoters, apart from one sub-regulation, and upholds the listing-regulation charges for missing prior approvals of the audit committee and shareholders for related-party transactions and for the audit committee's weak oversight. It records that the notice made no finding of fund diversion and sought no disgorgement. The member counted earlier SEBI orders against the company and some officers, including an IPO proceeds case, in setting the sanctions.

SEBI restrained the company and the two promoters from the securities market for one year from 21 October 2024, and restrained the two promoters from directorships and key managerial roles in listed companies other than Onelife for the same period. Penalties under sections 15HA and 15HB were Rs 25,00,000 each on the company and the two promoters, Rs 10,00,000 on one officer, Rs 5,00,000 each on three others and Rs 3,00,000 each on two, a total of Rs 1,06,00,000.

The record does not show whether anyone appealed. Beyond the securities market, the notice flagged possible issues with other authorities such as tax and corporate affairs regulators, but this order records no outcome on those. It mentions no 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. 2025-03-28 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

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.