SEBI v. Voltaire Leasing and Finance Limited and others (alleged self-funded preferential allotments, 2022)
Dismissed
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.
In March 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer disposed of, without any finding or penalty, allegations that Voltaire Leasing and Finance Limited funded its own preferential share allotments through conduit companies. The order accepted bank statements, agreements and certificates showing that the fund movements were ordinary business transactions.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-03-28 |
| Date resolved | 2022-03-28 |
| Court | SEBI Adjudicating Officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Voltaire Leasing and Finance Limited shares |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Voltaire Leasing and Finance Limited ; Amalesh Sadhu ; Harivallabh Mundhra ; Manish Baid ; Samir Baid ; Saroj Baid ; Inder Chand Baid ; Khoobsurat Limited ; Delineate Traders Private Limited ; Timelink Sales Private Limited ; Arihant Multi Commercial Limited ; Tanaya Vincom Private Limited |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
This adjudication order of 28 March 2022 involves twelve noticees: Voltaire Leasing and Finance Limited (VLFL), two of its non-independent directors, four members of the Baid family and five companies. SEBI began by examining a draft open offer for 26 percent of VLFL in 2014, noticed that the promoter's holding had fallen from 74.04 percent to 9.32 percent through three preferential allotments between November 2012 and August 2013, and investigated.
The show cause notice alleged that VLFL funded the allotments to two companies, Delineate and Timelink, through two conduit companies, Arihant and Tanaya, and funded the allotments to the four Baid family members through Khoobsurat. It alleged breach of section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a) to (d) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, said the directors were responsible for the company's acts, and added disclosure charges under the takeover and insider trading regulations for the group's alleged joint holding of 15.83 percent.
The adjudicating officer examined bank statements, ledger entries, three memoranda of understanding for share purchases and chartered accountant certificates that the noticees had produced and the investigation had not relied on. The officer found that the account statements independently supported the genuineness of the transfers, that Khoobsurat had sent VLFL more money than it received and that only Rs 50 lakh of Rs 2,37,25,000 moving between Khoobsurat and the Baid family could be linked to the subscription, so there were other business dealings. The officer concluded that the allottees were independent subscribers and the allegation of funding did not stand substantiated.
With the funding allegation rejected, the disclosure allegations against the Baid family failed too, since their combined holding of 3.24 percent was below the 5 percent trigger. Delineate and Timelink had earlier been given administrative warnings for a one-day delay in disclosure. The officer disposed of the notice against all noticees without any finding.
The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, what happened to the promoter-side sale that prompted the investigation, or any criminal case.
This library applies no technique tag to the matter, because no technique, because the allegation was funding of an issuer's own preferential allotment, which fits none of the library's techniques, and it was not substantiated. 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
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.