SEBI v. Dhirendra Kumar and others (warrant conversion round-tripping, Camson Bio Technologies, 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-59401-market-abuse-2022) by email

In May 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised two directors, five allottees and a promoter company a combined Rs 31,00,000 over the January 2009 conversion of Camson Bio Technologies warrants, which SEBI found was paid for by rotating money among the company and promoter-linked firms. The fraud penalties ranged from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 3 lakh each, with smaller penalties for disclosure breaches.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

3.1m 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

The order of 31 May 2022 follows a SEBI investigation that began with an anonymous complaint in January 2011. On 24 January 2009 Camson Bio Technologies Ltd. allotted 39,00,000 equity shares to eighteen preferential allottees on conversion of warrants issued in 2007, and the shares were then listed on the Bangalore Stock Exchange and admitted to trading on BSE.

SEBI alleged that the money for 38.13 lakh of those shares moved in a circle among the company and promoter-connected firms rather than coming from the allottees, so that other shareholders were defrauded. It named directors Dhirendra Kumar and Akbal Narayan Singh, who signed the annual report, five allottees, and Camson Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd., and also alleged missed disclosures to the exchanges under the takeover and insider-trading codes.

The adjudicating officer found that the consideration was shown as paid through rotated funds and that the noticees had joined in a fraudulent device, in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a) to (d) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, together with the issue-guidelines and disclosure breaches. Mr Dhirendra Kumar and Mr Akbal Narayan Singh each drew Rs 3,00,000 under section 15HA, and the allottees and Camson Farm Produce Rs 2,00,000 or Rs 3,00,000 each under that section.

Adding the separate disclosure and guideline penalties, the totals per noticee were Rs 6,00,000 (Mr Dhirendra Kumar), Rs 5,00,000 (Mr Akbal Narayan Singh), Rs 4,00,000 (Veerendra Kumar Singh), Rs 2,00,000 (Karan Singh), Rs 4,00,000 (Shivanand Singh), Rs 2,00,000 (Sangeeta Kshetry), Rs 4,00,000 (Ram Yadav) and Rs 4,00,000 (Camson Farm Produce), Rs 31,00,000 together. No market restriction was imposed here.

The record does not show whether any penalty was paid or appealed, or how the company itself and other allottees fared, since they are not among the noticees penalised in this order. A companion order of the same date disposed of the case against a further individual without penalty.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure, because the findings concern a share issue whose payment was shown falsely to the market. 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. 2022-05-31 SEBI adjudication order (31 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.

• 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.