SEBI v. Radhekrishna Broking and others (matched trades, Sterling Greenwoods, 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-59888-matched-orders-2022) by email

In June 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer again penalised nine noticees for rigging the price of Sterling Greenwoods Limited in 2009 through synchronised and reversal trades among connected parties. Each was fined Rs 18,00,000, a total of Rs 1.62 crore, in a rehearing ordered by the Securities Appellate Tribunal.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

16.2m 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

This order was issued on 21 June 2022 by an adjudicating officer of SEBI, after the Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside an October 2020 order against the same noticees for denial of a personal hearing and sent the matter back for a fresh decision. The noticees were a broking firm, six individuals, a developer company, Paksh Developers Private Limited, and Anurag Agrwal, who was managing director of Sterling Greenwoods and held almost all of Paksh.

SEBI investigated trading in the company's shares on BSE and the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange from April to July 2009, when the price rose by Rs 52 in 74 trading days from a pre-period range of roughly Rs 10 to 14. It alleged that a group of 15 linked entities, described as the Hemang Shah Group, accounted for about 58 percent of purchases and 53 percent of sales, accumulated shares through matched trades while volumes were inflated, and sold at the peak in July 2009. It also alleged that some of the group received funds from the company and from Paksh.

The order finds that the group's buy and sell orders repeatedly matched between related parties in a way that could not be coincidence, that the synchronised and reversal trades were not isolated, and that more than 70 percent of first trades establishing a higher price than the prior close came from the group. It holds that this was manipulation and fraud under Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 regulations and section 12A of the SEBI Act. The noticees denied that any group existed.

Each of the nine noticees was penalised Rs 18,00,000 under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, payable within 45 days. The order contains no market bar, as the notice proceeded only by way of penalty.

The record does not show whether the Tribunal was approached again, whether the penalties were paid, or any investor loss figure. It does not mention a criminal case.

This library tags the matter as matched orders and price manipulation. 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 2 techniques 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.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-06-21 SEBI adjudication order (after remand by SAT)

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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.