SEBI v. Gajanan Enterprises and B. P. Equities Private Limited (self-trades, Ess Dee Aluminium, 2022)
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.
In March 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer closed proceedings against a trading firm and its broker over self-trades in Ess Dee Aluminium shares, finding the allegation of manipulation not established. No penalty was imposed.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-03-11 |
| Date resolved | 2022-03-11 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Ess Dee Aluminium Limited shares |
| Venue | BSE, NSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Gajanan Enterprises ; B. P. Equities Private Limited |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
A SEBI adjudicating officer, Soma Majumder, decided the matter on 11 March 2022. The noticees are Gajanan Enterprises, a trader, and B. P. Equities Private Limited, the stock broker that acted on both sides of its trades. The shares concerned are those of Ess Dee Aluminium Limited, listed on BSE and NSE.
SEBI alleged that between September 2012 and June 2013 Gajanan Enterprises executed self-trades, where the same entity was buyer and seller, producing a false or misleading appearance of trading in breach of the PFUTP Regulations. It alleged that the broker, by acting for both sides, breached the broker code of conduct.
The order records 703 self-trades in 23,898 shares on BSE and 1,886 self-trades in 21,446 shares on NSE, which the trader did not dispute. It nevertheless found these amounted to only 0.16 per cent and 0.06 per cent of market volume on the two exchanges and that the notice did not allege other markers of manipulative intent such as timing, pattern or links to other traders. It held the fraud allegation not established, and therefore saw no basis to criticise the broker.
The proceedings were disposed of without any penalty under sections 15HA or 15HB of the SEBI Act.
The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, and the order does not say what price effect, if any, the self-trades had.
This library tags the matter as wash trading. 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.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2022-03-11 SEBI 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.