SEBI v. Bharat J Patel and others (synchronised trades, Garware Polyster, 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-59699-matched-orders-2022) by email

In June 2022 a SEBI whole-time member disposed of a show cause notice against ten members of a family-linked group accused of trading shares of Garware Polyster among themselves, finding the trades too sparse to infer manipulation. No penalty or restriction was imposed, and the proceeding against the lead noticee 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 whole-time member of SEBI issued this final order on 13 June 2022 against ten noticees, led by Bharat Jayantilal Patel and including his wife, two sons and five companies, in the matter of Garware Polyster Ltd. The show cause notice was dated 12 December 2019.

SEBI alleged that this group of connected entities, one of 16 linked parties identified in the investigation, executed 79 synchronised trades among themselves in the company's shares on BSE over 24 trading days between December 2011 and October 2014. The trades covered 1,316,653 shares, about 10.17 percent of market volume, and were said to create a misleading appearance of trading with no change of ownership, in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and the 2003 fraud and unfair trade practices regulations.

The noticees denied the allegations, argued that the notice came years late, that all trades settled by delivery, and that synchronised trading is not itself unlawful. Most did not attend the hearing.

The order finds that the trades matched in price and quantity within seconds, but that they were infrequent, spread across nearly three years, and not alleged to have moved the price. It also notes that the notice alleged no link to the company's promoters or any advantage gained. It therefore holds that no violation was made out and disposes of the proceedings against nine noticees without adverse directions. The proceedings against Mr Patel stood abated because he died on 29 May 2021.

No penalty, restraint or other sanction was ordered. The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, or the group's other trading in the scrip.

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. 2022-06-13 SEBI final 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.

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.