SEBI v. CHP Finance Private Limited and others (price manipulation, Sanco Industries, 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-60521-matched-orders-2022) by email

In June 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised nine of ten connected noticees a combined Rs 9 lakh for synchronised and non-genuine trades that pushed the price of Sanco Industries Limited down and then up in 2016. The case against Ang Capital Services was not made out.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

900k 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

An adjudicating officer of SEBI issued this order on 30 June 2022 against ten noticees in the matter of Sanco Industries Limited, a company whose shares traded on NSE. They were nine companies, including CHP Finance, Minshi Creation and IFL Promoters, and one individual, Shashi Garg. SEBI investigated trading from January to November 2016, and the show cause notice is dated 21 October 2021.

SEBI alleged that a connected group traded among themselves in two phases: a price fall from January to August 2016, when the price moved from Rs 37.10 to Rs 20 and closed at Rs 31, and a rise from August to November 2016, when it climbed from Rs 33.90 to Rs 115. It said the connected entities accounted for about 65 percent of the negative price movement in the first phase, and that some executed synchronised trades and trades at new high prices in the second. The charges were under Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 fraud and unfair trade practices regulations.

Most noticees did not appear at the hearings, and one submitted a reply for the group. The officer held that the trading pattern showed the trades were not genuine, created artificial volume and moved the price down and then up, and found the violations established against nine noticees. For Ang Capital Services the connection to the others was not established and no violation was held proved.

The order imposes a penalty of Rs 9,00,000 under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, payable jointly and severally by the nine noticees found liable, within 45 days. The officer noted that no gain or loss could be quantified and that the conduct was not shown to be repeated.

The record does not show whether the penalty was paid or appealed. The order 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. 2022-06-30 SEBI adjudication 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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.