SEBI v. Shree Gopal Gupta and others (employee trading, Regency Hospital, 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-57485-wash-trading-2022) by email

In March 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer disposed of, without findings or penalty, charges against seven employees of Regency Hospital and a broker over synchronised and self-trades in the company's shares in 2011. The case against the funders had already been dropped, and the officer saw no independent evidence against the traders.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

A SEBI adjudicating officer, Geetha G, decided the matter on 31 March 2022. The noticees are seven employees of Regency Hospital Limited, namely Shree Gopal Gupta, Ashok Kumar Nigam, Hari Om Mishra, Ajay Srivastava, Paramjeet Arora, Parul Kansal and K P Abraham, together with the broker JLG Securities Private Limited. SEBI examined trading in the company's shares from April to September 2011.

SEBI's 2015 show cause notice alleged that the company and its managing directors, Atul Kapoor and Rashmi Kapoor, had funded the employees to deal in the company's own shares and push up the price, apparently to support a promoter pledge covering about 33.6 per cent of the shares. It separately alleged that the employees and the broker, which traded for itself, created artificial volume through synchronised, reversal and self-trades and contributed to the price rise, in breach of regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations.

An earlier adjudication order of January 2021 had dropped the funding allegation against the company and its directors, relying on an auditor's certificate. The present order notes that the employees mostly did not dispute the trades. It holds that the case is not an ordinary manipulation case, because the employees' trading is inseparable from the alleged promoter motive, and that there is no independent evidence of manipulation by the employees themselves. It extended the benefit of the earlier finding to all eight noticees, saying the broker's proprietary trades happened to coincide with theirs.

The notice was disposed of without any findings against the noticees and without a penalty.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, and the order does not decide whether the trading in the scrip was in fact manipulative.

This library tags the matter as wash trading and matched orders. 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 2 techniques 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.
• Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-03-31 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.

• 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.