SEBI v. RHC Holding Private Limited, Malvinder Mohan Singh, Shivinder Mohan Singh and others (diversion of funds, Fortis Healthcare, 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-58214-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2022) by email

In April 2022 a SEBI whole-time member found that about Rs 397 crore was diverted from Fortis Healthcare group companies to entities controlled by its former promoters, with misleading accounts hiding it. He barred the promoters and others from the market and imposed penalties of about Rs 24 crore.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

240m 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

A SEBI whole-time member, Ananta Barua, issued the final order on 19 April 2022, following an ex-parte interim order of October 2018 and a later confirmation. The noticees were RHC Holding Pvt Ltd, the former promoters Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, their holding companies Malav Holdings and Shivi Holdings, two executives, Gagandeep Singh Bedi and Bhavdeep Singh, and the listed company Fortis Healthcare Limited with its subsidiary Fortis Hospitals Limited.

The case began from a forensic audit commissioned after the interim order. SEBI alleged that between January and May 2016 about Rs 397 crore belonging to the listed group was moved, in the form of inter-corporate deposits routed through intermediate firms, to benefit RHC Holding, which the two brothers ultimately controlled. It further alleged that the transactions were hidden in the accounts.

The order finds fraud established under section 12A(c) of the SEBI Act and regulations 3(d) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations against all the noticees. It finds that Fortis Healthcare's consolidated financial statements for the quarters from June 2016 to June 2017 were misleading, that certificates signed by the two executives were false, and that the company failed to disclose the fraud to the stock exchanges. The former chairman and vice-chairman were found to have deliberately failed to disclose their interest in the transactions to the board.

The order directed the two listed companies to keep pursuing recovery of the diverted sum with interest, and restrained the two brothers from the securities market, including as directors, for three years or until recovery if later. It restrained five others and Fortis Healthcare for two years. Penalties under section 15HA and other provisions are tabulated as Rs 2.5 crore on each of RHC Holding, Malav Holdings, Shivi Holdings, Mr Bedi and Mr Bhavdeep Singh, Rs 5 crore on each brother, Rs 50 lakh on Fortis Hospitals and Rs 1 crore on Fortis Healthcare, about Rs 24 crore in all.

The record shows the company later filed criminal complaints with police about the dealings, but this order does not say how far any criminal matter went. It does not show whether this order was appealed or how much of the money was recovered.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure. 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.

• Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-04-19 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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.