SEBI v. Bhavin Sureshbhai Thakkar (price manipulation, Evexia Lifecare, dismissed, 2026)

Dismissed

✓ 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-102459-price-manipulation-2026) by email

In June 2026 a SEBI adjudicating officer gave a trader the benefit of the doubt on charges that he pushed up the price of Evexia Lifecare shares with many one-share buy orders. The order found the manipulation not established on the balance of probabilities and imposed no penalty.

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

The adjudication order of 30 June 2026 concerns one noticee, Bhavin Sureshbhai Thakkar, a trader in the shares of Evexia Lifecare Limited, a company formerly called Kavit Industries and listed on the BSE. The case was decided by a SEBI adjudicating officer in Mumbai.

SEBI's investigation covered a 59-day period in which trading in Evexia was examined for manipulation. Its show-cause notice of 18 December 2023 alleged that Mr Thakkar placed a large number of single-share buy orders, 179 of them, which pushed up the last traded price and established new high prices, that these trades accounted for a large share of the positive price movement, and that he thereby breached section 12A of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations. He replied that he was a jobber taking advantage of volatility, that the delay of some seven years had prejudiced him, and that his broker had not warned him of any restriction.

The order does not accept the manipulation case. It notes that he bought and sold nearly equal quantities daily, used limit orders at the best ask after the sell orders became visible, and later bought much larger quantities, one day contributing 35 per cent of exchange volume. It also notes that the notice did not allege unlawful profit at others' expense, and that he had no established connection with his counterparties or the suspected group in the investigation report.

On that basis the adjudicating officer held that the preponderance of probabilities did not show manipulative intent, gave him the benefit of the doubt, and found that the alleged violations of section 12A and regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations were not established. No penalty or other direction was issued.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed. It describes no criminal case. The order is a dismissal on the facts, not a finding that the price movement was natural.

This library tags the matter as price manipulation. 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.

• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2026-06-30 SEBI adjudication order disposing of the notice

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.