SEBI v. Nilesh J Dhamecha (auditor certificate, Tirupati Fincorp, 2022)
Dismissed
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 June 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer disposed of proceedings against chartered accountant Nilesh J Dhamecha without penalty, holding that a careless certificate on the use of Tirupati Fincorp's preferential issue money was professional misconduct rather than fraud. The order found no evidence that the certificate induced anyone to trade or that he colluded with the company.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-06-14 |
| Date resolved | 2022-06-14 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Tirupati Fincorp Limited shares (2013 preferential allotment) |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Nilesh J Dhamecha |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The order of 14 June 2022 concerns Mr Dhamecha, a partner in the accounting firm KPND and Co, who certified for the BSE that the proceeds of Tirupati Fincorp Limited's January 2013 preferential issue, Rs 4,20,00,000 raised from 27 allottees, had not been misused. A separate order of 27 May 2022 found that the company in fact used those proceeds for fabric trading.
SEBI investigated the role of chartered accountants in such certificates and alleged that Mr Dhamecha's certificate was issued in a reckless and careless manner, which SEBI treated as fraud contrary to section 12A(c) of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations (Regulation 3(d) and the definition of fraud in Regulation 2). The proceeding was brought under section 15HA.
Mr Dhamecha said he had no other link to the company, relied on documents it supplied, and at worst was negligent, a matter for the accountants' professional body rather than SEBI. The adjudicating officer accepted that, on the facts, the definition of fraud requires inducing someone to deal in securities. The certificate was meant for the exchange's investigation, was not issued to the public, and there was no evidence of collusion, so the officer called the lapse professional misconduct that does not meet the fraud definition.
The proceedings were disposed of without any penalty, and the questions of penalty and quantum were not reached.
The record does not show whether the accountants' institute took any action, or whether SEBI appealed. The order does not decide whether the certificate was inaccurate beyond noting that the exchange found the proceeds misused.
This library tags the matter as no specific technique, as the allegation concerns a certificate by an auditor and was not upheld. 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.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.