SEBI v. Goldline International Finvest Limited and others (HPC Biosciences IPO funding, 2022)

Judgment entered

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; 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-56434-market-abuse-2022) by email

In February 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised thirteen noticees in the 2013 IPO of HPC Biosciences Limited, for funding applicants from connected entities and, for the company and its promoters, diverting IPO proceeds. Penalties total about Rs 1.56 crore, of which Rs 5 lakh against the company is payable only depending on a Supreme Court appeal.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	SEBI (India)
Date filed	2022-02-25
Date resolved	2022-02-25
Court	SEBI Adjudicating Officer
Status	judgment
Asset class	equities
Instruments	HPC Biosciences Limited IPO shares
Venue	BSE SME
Criminal parallel	No
Defendants	Goldline International Finvest Limited (entity) ; Madhukar Dubey (individual) ; Satendra Kumar (individual) ; Avisha Credit Capital Private Limited (entity) ; Sumit Kumar (individual) ; Raj Kumar (individual) ; Prakash Gupta (individual) ; AMS Powertronic Private Limited (entity) ; HPC Biosciences Limited (entity) ; Tarun Chauhan (individual) ; Madhu Anand (individual) ; Sakshi Saxena (individual)
Also named elsewhere	AMS Powertronic Private Limited is named in 1 other matter ; Avisha Credit Capital Private Limited is named in 1 other matter ; Goldline International Finvest Limited is named in 3 other matters
Techniques

What was ordered

Civil penalty: —
Disgorgement: —
Prejudgment interest: —
Total relief: —
Alleged gain: —
Penalty as published: 15.6m 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

This adjudication order of 25 February 2022 involves thirteen noticees in the matter of HPC Biosciences Limited, which raised Rs 15.75 crore through an IPO of 45 lakh shares at Rs 35 and listed on the BSE SME segment on 19 March 2013. The noticees were the company, its promoters Tarun Chauhan and Madhu Anand, two independent directors, Sakshi Saxena and Arun Kumar Gupta, and eight entities described as funding group or trading group participants, among them Goldline International Finvest, Avisha Credit Capital and AMS Powertronic.

SEBI had earlier restrained 254 entities in a 2015 interim order about the IPOs of several companies, later revoked for 216, and a whole time member order of 22 December 2020 issued directions against eleven of these noticees. This order deals with monetary penalties. SEBI's findings, as the order records them, are that eight entities connected to the company funded IPO applicants, for example through cheques of Rs 1.40 lakh each for retail applicants, although the prospectus said no payment would be made to allottees, and that IPO proceeds later flowed to those funding entities.

The adjudicating officer concluded that the connections and fund flows left no doubt that the funding entities indirectly subscribed to the IPO to reach the minimum subscription, and that the company reimbursed them out of the IPO proceeds. The officer found breaches of Regulations 3 and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations with section 12A of the SEBI Act by all thirteen, with further findings against the company and promoters under additional PFUTP limbs and under ICDR provisions, and against some noticees for incorrect information given to SEBI.

Penalties under section 15HA were Rs 10 lakh each on noticees 1 to 11 and Rs 5 lakh each on the two independent directors, with additional amounts under sections 15HB and 15A(a) on several noticees. Adding the table gives Rs 1.56 crore in all. In setting the amounts the officer noted that gains and investor losses could not be quantified and that the earlier whole time member order had already restrained several noticees. The Rs 5 lakh imposed on the company under section 23E of the securities contracts law is payable depending on the outcome of a Supreme Court appeal in another matter.

The record does not show whether the penalties were paid or appealed, or any criminal case.

This library applies no technique tag to the matter, because no technique, because the findings concern funding of IPO applicants and diversion of IPO proceeds, which fits none of the library's techniques with confidence. 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.

Timeline

2022-02-25 SEBI adjudication 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.

SEBI order

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.