SEBI v. Urja Global Limited and others (false Nippon Shinyaku announcement, 2022)
Judgment entered
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 May 2022 a SEBI Whole Time Member found that Urja Global issued a false announcement in July 2019 of a supply deal with the Japanese firm Nippon Shinyaku for a product called Zacobite, and that the price and volume rose afterwards. He barred the company and four individuals from the market for two years and warned two others.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-05-13 |
| Date resolved | 2022-05-13 |
| Court | SEBI Whole Time Member |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Urja Global Limited shares |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | Urja Global Limited restrained from the securities market and from raising money from the public for 2 years, Four individuals restrained from the securities market and from associations with listed companies or intermediaries for 2 years, Two individuals warned, Company must obtain a company secretary's certificate for each corporate announcement for 3 years |
| Defendants | Urja Global Limited ; Yogesh Kumar Goyal ; Sunil Kumar Mittal ; Aditya Venketesh ; Bharat Pranjivandas Merchant ; Priya Bhalla ; Avinash Kumar Agarwal |
| Also named elsewhere | Urja Global Limited |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The final order of 13 May 2022 was made under sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act against Urja Global Limited, a BSE-listed company, and six current or former directors and chief executives. It followed a show cause notice of March 2021 based on an examination covering April 2018 to August 2019.
On 13 July 2019, a Saturday, the company announced a five-year agreement under which it would represent the Japanese company Nippon Shinyaku in buying a product called Zacobite, with a total commission of USD 60.5 lakh. SEBI alleged that no such product could be found, that Nippon Shinyaku denied any dealings, and that the company's later claim that impostors had defrauded it was an afterthought. It also alleged that earlier agreements announced since March 2018 were not updated on the exchanges or posted on the company website.
The Whole Time Member did not accept the company's account of being a victim. He found that the company had colluded in creating a false situation for the announcement, and noted that the closing price rose from about Rs 2.16 to Rs 2.60 and Rs 3.05 on the next two trading days while traded volume jumped from 1,66,312 to 24,66,443 and then 93,41,234 shares. He held that the announcement was meant to induce investors to trade, breaching Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations and the listing regulations, and found further disclosure failures.
The directions restrain Urja Global from dealing in securities or raising money from the public for two years and restrain Yogesh Kumar Goyal, Sunil Kumar Mittal, Priya Bhalla and Avinash Kumar Agarwal from dealing and from associating with listed companies or intermediaries for two years. Aditya Venketesh and Bharat Pranjivandas Merchant were warned, and for three years the company must have a practising company secretary certify each corporate announcement. No monetary penalty is imposed in this order.
The record does not show who profited from the price rise, whether the police complaint the company filed in January 2020 led anywhere, or whether the order was appealed.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure, because the findings centre on a false corporate announcement that moved the share price. 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
- 2022-05-13 SEBI final order (13 May 2022)
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.