SEBI v. Bharat Jayantilal Patel and others (Garware Polyester synchronized trades, 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-58901-matched-orders-2022) by email

On 12 May 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer closed proceedings against thirteen members and brokers of the Bharat Patel group over 79 synchronized trades in Garware Polyester shares. The officer found no evidence of manipulative intent and imposed no penalty.

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, Soma Majumder, decided the matter on 12 May 2022. The thirteen noticees were twelve members of what SEBI called the Bharat Patel group (four family members, seven companies and one other individual) and Finquest Securities Pvt Ltd, a broker whose directors included two of the family. The stock was Garware Polyester Ltd, listed on BSE, and the investigation period ran from December 2011 to October 2014.

SEBI alleged that 15 connected entities repeatedly executed synchronized trades among themselves, 79 trades in about 1.3 million shares, around 10 per cent of market volume over 24 trading days, creating a misleading appearance of trading without any change of real ownership. It alleged breaches of section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 fraudulent and unfair trade practices regulations, and alleged that Finquest, which handled seven of the trades, facilitated them and breached the stock-broker code of conduct.

The officer found the allegations not established. Citing Tribunal and Supreme Court authority that synchronized trades are not unlawful in themselves, the order stresses that the trades were spread thinly over almost three years, on only 22 distinct days, mostly one to four trades a day apart from one day with 49. The noticees had no demonstrated link to the company, the investigation showed no effect on the share price, and several noticees traded far larger volumes in the same stock without being accused. Because the clients' trades were not violations, the broker allegations against Finquest also failed.

The proceedings were disposed of with no penalty. The order also records that Bharat Jayantilal Patel died on 29 May 2021, so the proceedings against him abated.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed or whether the group faced separate action. This is a disposal of allegations, not a finding that any manipulation occurred.

This library tags the matter as 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 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2022-05-12 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

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.