SEBI v. Bharat Jayantilal Patel and others (synchronised trades, Super Sales India, 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-58559-matched-orders-2022) by email

In April 2022 a SEBI whole-time member barred nine members and companies of the Bharat Patel Group from the securities market for three months for repeated synchronised trades in Super Sales India shares. A tenth, Nirshilp Securities, was only warned, and proceedings against the group's founder abated on his death.

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 whole-time member, S K Mohanty, decided the matter on 29 April 2022 under the board's directions powers. The eleven noticees were Bharat Jayantilal Patel, three family members (Minal, Hardik and Ruchit Bharat Patel), six group companies and Nirshilp Securities Private Limited, a trading firm. The shares are those of Super Sales India Limited, listed on BSE, and SEBI examined December 2011 to October 2014 in six price patches.

SEBI alleged that the Bharat Patel Group entities traded repeatedly among themselves in synchronised trades that created a misleading appearance of trading, and that Nirshilp made self-trades and tiny trades that affected the price. The scrip's price moved between about Rs 123 and Rs 460 during the period.

The order finds the synchronised trades by noticees 1 to 10 on more than one day established, holding that they were not genuine market participants and had no real intention to trade, in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. It accepts Nirshilp's explanation that its trades and self-trades were accidental by-products of an arbitrage practice, finds no evidence they manipulated the price, but warns it because of their volume and method. The case against Mr Patel abated on his death.

The member restrained the nine other group noticees from the securities market for three months each and warned Nirshilp. No monetary penalty was imposed in this order.

The record does not show whether the order was appealed, any profit made, or other investors' losses.

This library tags the matter as matched orders and 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 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.

• Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-04-29 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 3 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.