Market Manipulation. Search

SEBI v. Coral Hub Limited and others (inflated financial results, 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-59438-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2022) by email

On 31 May 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised Coral Hub Limited and three directors for publishing inflated sales and profit figures for 2008 to 2010, and another company for ignoring a SEBI summons. The penalties total Rs 28 lakh.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency SEBI (India)
Date filed 2022-05-31
Date resolved 2022-05-31
Court SEBI adjudicating officer
Status judgment
Asset class equities
Instruments Coral Hub Limited shares
Venue NSE, BSE
Criminal parallel No
Defendants Coral Hub Limited (entity) ; G.S. Chandrashekar (individual) ; Dilip C. Parekh (individual) ; G.S. Vishwanatham (individual) ; Tutis Technologies Ltd (entity)
Techniques Misleading issuer disclosure

What was ordered

Civil penalty
—
Disgorgement
—
Prejudgment interest
—
Total relief
—
Alleged gain
—
Penalty as published
2.8m 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 adjudicating officer, Vijayant Kumar Verma, decided the matter on 31 May 2022. The noticees were Coral Hub Ltd (CHL), its chairman G S Chandrashekar, whole-time directors Dilip C Parekh and G S Vishwanatham, and Tutis Technologies Ltd. SEBI began after an anonymous complaint alleged that CHL's revenue and profit were fabricated, and examined April 2008 to June 2010.

SEBI alleged that CHL published false, inflated and misleading financial results for 2008-09 and 2009-10: its reported standalone sales were about Rs 61.1 crore and Rs 88.4 crore, with net profit of about Rs 14.7 crore and Rs 20.1 crore. It alleged that the company and its directors breached section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 fraudulent and unfair trade practices regulations and listing conditions. Tutis was separately alleged to have ignored a summons delivered in May 2013, hampering the investigation.

The officer held that the noticees showed inflated sales and correspondingly inflated profits in the balance sheet, and that Tutis had not complied with the summons. Taking account of a September 2021 whole-time member order in parallel proceedings, the officer imposed Rs 10 lakh on CHL and Rs 5 lakh each on the three directors under section 15HA, and Rs 3 lakh on Tutis under section 15A(a), a total of Rs 28 lakh. The order noted that no gain or investor loss could be computed and that a long time had passed since the conduct.

The record does not show how the inflated figures were produced beyond the order's summary, whether anyone appealed, or what happened to the company's other directors.

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.

Timeline

  1. 2022-05-31 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.

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

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

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEBI v. Lloyds Enterprises Limited and others (advances and financial statements, settlement, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-09-29 Misleading Issuer Disclosure — settled
SEBI v. Omaxe Limited and others (minimum public shareholding via company funds, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-09-24 Misleading Issuer Disclosure — judgment
SEBI v. Tarapur Transformers Limited and others (diverted funds and inflated receivables, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-08-31 Misleading Issuer Disclosure — judgment
SEBI v. Trafiksol ITS Technologies Limited and others (misleading IPO prospectus, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-08-28 Misleading Issuer Disclosure — judgment
SEBI v. Debock Industries Limited and others (fictitious issues, inflated sales and diverted rights-issue funds, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-08-28 Misleading Issuer Disclosure , Price Manipulation — judgment
SEBI v. Varanium Cloud Limited and others (false accounts, diverted IPO funds and share sales, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-08-25 Misleading Issuer Disclosure , Price Manipulation — judgment

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.