SEBI v. Lloyds Enterprises Limited and others (advances and financial statements, settlement, 2026)
Settled
Checked against the primary document on October 9, 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.
In September 2026 SEBI settled potential enforcement against Lloyds Enterprises Limited, its managing director and its chief financial officer over advances of about Rs 144.82 crore that were not provided for in the company's accounts. The three paid Rs 4.16 crore in total without admitting or denying the allegations.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2026-09-29 |
| Date resolved | 2026-09-29 |
| Court | Securities and Exchange Board of India |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Lloyds Enterprises Limited shares |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Lloyds Enterprises Limited ; Rajesh Rajnarayan Gupta ; Viresh Shankar Sohoni |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 41.6m INR
What is alleged to have happened
The settlement order of 29 September 2026 was signed by two whole time members of SEBI. The applicants are the listed company Lloyds Enterprises Limited, Rajesh Rajnarayan Gupta, its managing director in the relevant period, and Viresh Shankar Sohoni, its chief financial officer. All three applied suo motu, before any show cause notice, to settle proceedings that might be started against them.
According to the order, SEBI investigated after a BSE alert of November 2023 about irregularities in advances reported by the company. SEBI's account of the facts is that, from 2016-17 to 2020-21, the company did not recognise expected credit losses under IND-AS 109 on advances of Rs 144.82 crore outstanding from two companies, Cheerful Trade & Realty Developers and Triumph Trade & Properties Developers, so overstating the advances in its financial statements.
SEBI further said the company moved the Rs 144.82 crore to those two companies in 2006-07, at nil interest and without an agreement, for the benefit of promoters or their related entities, and that the two were related parties that the company did not disclose as such in its annual reports from 2016-17 to 2022-23. The order records that in 2023-24 the company received a 7 percent partnership interest in Lloyds Metals & Minerals Trading LLP in lieu of the advances. The provisions listed as potentially violated include PFUTP provisions 4(1) with 4(2)(f), (k) and (r), together with many disclosure and governance provisions of the LODR Regulations.
The settlement terms were Rs 1.28 crore for the company and Rs 1.44 crore each for Mr Gupta and Mr Sohoni, Rs 4.16 crore in all. The panel of whole time members approved them on 15 July 2026, and payment was confirmed in August 2026. In return SEBI will not start enforcement for the listed violations, subject to its right to act if representations prove untrue, undertakings are breached, or a shortfall arises from a discrepancy in the terms.
The order contains no findings and no admission. The record does not show any loss to shareholders beyond what SEBI described, any action by other authorities, or whether other persons were investigated.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure, because the alleged conduct centres on unrecognised credit losses and undisclosed related parties in company accounts. 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
- 2026-09-29 SEBI settlement 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.