SEBI v. Omaxe Limited and others (minimum public shareholding via company funds, 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. 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-104726-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2026) by email

A SEBI senior officer found that Omaxe Limited's own money, routed through related companies and brokers, paid for shares bought in two 2013 offers for sale that were then counted towards the company's minimum public shareholding. The September 2026 order restrained six noticees from the securities market for between three months and a year and imposed penalties totalling Rs 1.92 crore.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

19.2m 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

The order of 24 September 2026 was issued by a SEBI quasi-judicial authority under Sections 11, 11B and 12A of the SEBI Act, and concerns Omaxe Limited, a real-estate developer listed on NSE and BSE since 2007. It names eight noticees: the company, four promoters or directors from the Goel family, two promoter-group family members and two promoter companies, Dream Home Developers Pvt Ltd and Guild Builders Pvt Ltd.

SEBI alleged that Omaxe lent about Rs 46.50 crore through two intermediate companies (Rs 33.50 crore to DVM Realtors and Rs 13 crore to Garv Buildtech). The money was passed on through Jeet Builders to seven further entities, then reached broker accounts and was used to buy Omaxe shares in the offers for sale of 3 June and 29 October 2013. Those shares were then treated as public shareholding for the purpose of meeting the minimum public shareholding rule, although the buyers were funded from the company itself.

The order sustains the core of that case against the company, three of the Goel family promoters and the two promoter companies. It finds breaches of the minimum public shareholding rules, of a Companies Act restriction on a company financing purchases of its own shares, of the listing disclosure rules, and of Section 12A of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3(b), 3(c) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations. For two family members, Sushma Goel and Seema Goel, it found the evidence insufficient to attribute the violations to them individually.

As sanctions, Omaxe was restrained from the securities market for 3 months and the other five penalised noticees for 1 year each, with a three-month window to close existing derivative positions. The penalties, stated across Sections 15A(b), 15HA and 15HB, were Rs 27 lakh for Omaxe, Dream Home Developers and Guild Builders each, and Rs 37 lakh each for Rohtas Goel, Sunil Goel and Jai Bhagwan Goel, a total of Rs 1.92 crore. Payment was due within 45 days.

The penalty combines sums for disclosure and listing breaches with the PFUTP fraud penalty, so only part of it relates to fraud on the market. The record does not show whether any noticee appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, whether the money was repaid, or what profit anyone made. 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

1. 2026-09-24 SEBI order imposing restraints and penalties

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
• 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.