SEBI v. TIL Ltd and others (financial statement fraud, 2024)
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.
On 30 May 2024 a SEBI adjudicating officer found that TIL Ltd recorded fictitious steel-trading and sales transactions that overstated its revenue and receivables across several years. The company, its chairman and managing director, a chief financial officer and a chief executive were penalised Rs 2.5 crore in total.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2024-05-30 |
| Date resolved | 2024-05-30 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | TIL Ltd shares |
| Venue | BSE, NSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | TIL Limited ; Sumit Mazumdar ; Shibaditya Ghosh ; Ramesh Aggarwal |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 25m INR
What is alleged to have happened
The adjudication order of 30 May 2024 names four noticees: TIL Limited, a company listed on BSE and NSE; Sumit Mazumdar, its chairman and managing director; Shibaditya Ghosh, its chief financial officer from June 2020 to May 2021; and Ramesh Aggarwal, its chief executive from May 2019 to June 2020. The matter began with an email and complaints in January 2022 from an ex-employee alleging that the 2020-21 balance sheet was fudged and fictitious steel trading was booked to pad revenue for the banks.
SEBI investigated 2017-18 to 2021-22. It alleged that the company raised sales invoices to a customer that said it had no contract with TIL, then wrote off about Rs 29.80 crore of them in 2021-22, and that it raised, reversed and re-issued invoices and booked sham sales with other parties, overstating sales and receivables by amounts including Rs 23.28 crore and Rs 86.02 crore in two successive years. The company answered that it had traded steel to keep the business going and that invoices were reversed because goods had not moved.
The adjudicating officer found that the financial statements did not give a true and fair picture, and that the company and the three officers had breached the 2003 fraud and unfair trade practice regulations and the listing-disclosure regulations. The officers were held responsible for the statements published while they held office.
Under sections 15HA and 15HB of the SEBI Act, TIL and Mr Mazumdar were each penalised Rs 50 lakh under each section, Rs 1 crore apiece, and Mr Ghosh and Mr Aggarwal Rs 12.5 lakh under each, Rs 25 lakh apiece. The total is Rs 2.5 crore, payable within 45 days.
The order imposes no market ban. The record does not show whether the order was appealed or the penalties paid, and it describes 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
- 2024-05-30 SEBI adjudication 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.