SEBI v. Mangalmayee Hirise Pvt Ltd and others (small buy orders lifting Nouveau Global Ventures, 2022)

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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-55691-price-manipulation-2022) by email

A SEBI adjudicating officer found that six connected companies repeatedly placed small buy orders priced above the last traded price in Nouveau Global Ventures, lifting the price in late 2010 and early 2011 without any genuine buying purpose. The January 2022 order imposed a joint and several penalty of Rs 6 lakh.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

600k 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 adjudication order of 28 January 2022 was passed by a SEBI adjudicating officer under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act. It names six private companies, Mangalmayee Hirise, Subhshree Hirise, Suryamukhi Projects, Growfast Realtors, Pushpanjali Commotrade and Skylight Distributors, in the matter of price manipulation in Nouveau Global Ventures Ltd. The investigation covered December 2010 to March 2013. Show-cause notices to four of the companies came back undelivered and were handled by alternative service.

SEBI alleged that during the first period, before the April 2011 share split, the scrip rose from Rs 128 to Rs 201.30 and that the six noticees, acting together, contributed about 34.6 percent of the market's positive last-traded-price movement. The order focuses on 60 trades in which small buy orders were placed at prices higher than the existing sell orders or the last price, even though larger sell orders were available, creating a fresh higher price each time.

The noticees denied connection to each other and to counterparties, argued that the delay of about a decade and the count of trades with no price effect undermined the case, and said their buying was ordinary. The officer relied on the prior SEBI whole-time member order of 19 March 2021, issued under Section 11B on the same facts after a Securities Appellate Tribunal remand, which held the six not to be genuine buyers, and concluded that they made repeated premeditated purchases above the last traded price to manipulate the price, in breach of Regulations 3(a) to (d), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(e) of the PFUTP Regulations.

On the penalty the officer took into account the volume of trades, the percentage contribution to the price, the effect on price discovery and the long lapse since 2010-11, and imposed a single penalty of Rs 6,00,000 under Section 15HA, to be paid jointly and severally. No trading restraint was ordered in this adjudication.

The record does not show whether the noticees appealed, what profit they made or what loss other investors suffered, or how the six are connected beyond what the earlier order found. It describes no criminal case.

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. 2022-01-28 SEBI adjudication order imposing a joint penalty

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.