SEBI v. Ashok Maheshwari and others (front running a portfolio manager's trades, 2026)
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.
A SEBI whole-time member held in April 2026 that a broker's dealer passed on a portfolio manager's impending orders and that a group around Darshan Shah traded ahead of them in 2021 to 2022. The final order confirms the market bans, orders disgorgement of about Rs 1.30 crore and imposes penalties of Rs 1.52 crore in total.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2026-04-27 |
| Date resolved | 2026-04-27 |
| Court | SEBI whole-time member |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | listed equity shares |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | Total market restraint of 4 years for Ashok Maheshwari and Darshan Bakul Shah, 2 years for Khusboo Shah, the HUF, Benzer Department Stores and Mihir Savla, and 3 years for CHL Stock Concepts and Chirag Shah, counting time already served under the interim order, Maheshwari, Darshan Shah and Chirag Shah barred from director and key managerial roles at intermediaries and listed companies for 2 years |
| Defendants | Ashok Maheshwari ; Darshan Bakul Shah ; Khusboo Darshan Shah ; Darshan Bakul Shah (HUF) ; Benzer Department Stores Pvt. Ltd. ; Mihir Dhirajalal Savla ; CHL Stock Concepts Pvt. Ltd. ; Chirag Mahendra Shah |
| Techniques | Front running |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 15.2m INR
What is alleged to have happened
This final order of 27 April 2026 was made by a SEBI whole-time member. It follows an interim order and show-cause notice of 26 April 2024. The eight noticees are Ashok Maheshwari, a dealer at Kotak Securities; Darshan Bakul Shah, his wife Khusboo Darshan Shah and his Hindu undivided family; Benzer Department Stores Pvt. Ltd.; Mihir Dhirajalal Savla; CHL Stock Concepts Pvt. Ltd.; and Chirag Mahendra Shah.
SEBI's case was that Mr Maheshwari placed the trading orders of the portfolio manager Unifi Capital Pvt. Ltd., which SEBI called the Big Client, and knew its orders in advance. It alleged that he passed that information on to Darshan Shah, who traded ahead of the client in the accounts of his family and related companies and tipped others, between April 2021 and May 2022, and that the others traded on the same non-public information. The alleged breaches were of section 12A of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations, including the front-running provision.
The final order finds the scheme established. It treats Darshan Shah as the person who extended it by trading in several accounts and passing the information to others, and holds the noticees liable on that basis. The order notes that the Securities Appellate Tribunal had earlier suspended the interim debarment for four of the noticees, and takes the time already served into account.
Total restraints, including time already served under the interim order, are four years for Mr Maheshwari and Darshan Shah, two years for Khusboo Shah, the HUF, Benzer and Mr Savla, and three years for CHL Stock Concepts and Chirag Shah. The order directs disgorgement of Rs 1,29,60,230.75 in total with 12 per cent simple interest, with joint and several liability among linked noticees. Penalties of Rs 1 lakh to Rs 25 lakh each total Rs 1.52 crore.
The record does not show whether the order was appealed or whether the sums were paid beyond the impounded amounts. It describes no criminal case. An automated keyword pass had tagged insider trading, but the order treats the conduct as front running.
This library tags the matter as front running. 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.
- Front running — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
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.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEBI v. Bhavik Indravadan Shah and others (front running a broker client, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-08-19 | Front Running | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Madhav Stock Vision Pvt. Ltd. and others (front running a large institutional client, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-07-24 | Front Running | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Prijesh Kurani and others (front running a broker's client orders, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-04-30 | Front Running | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Vishvanath Goswami and others (front running a foreign fund's trades, Chaturvedi group, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-03-27 | Front Running | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Sunny Bhatia and others (front running Sarvottam Securities trades, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-03-24 | Front Running | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Ashish S Parekh and others (front running of a large client's orders, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-01-16 | Front Running | — | judgment |