SEBI v. Arvind Babulal Goyal and others (reversal trades, Kanchan International, 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.
A SEBI adjudicating officer fined four individuals Rs 5 lakh each, Rs 20 lakh in all, for reversal trades in Kanchan International shares on the BSE that created artificial volume. The case against a fifth noticee ended because he had died.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-07-28 |
| Date resolved | 2022-07-28 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Kanchan International Ltd shares |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Arvind Babulal Goyal ; Sorab Wadia ; Ramesh Dwarkadas Daga ; Rupesh D Bhatt ; Dharmendra Bhojak |
| Techniques | Matched orders |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 2m INR
What is alleged to have happened
The adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India decided the matter on 28 July 2022. SEBI had investigated trading in the shares of Kanchan International Ltd, listed on the BSE, between October 2011 and April 2012. The five noticees were Arvind Babulal Goyal, Sorab Wadia, Ramesh Dwarkadas Daga, Rupesh D Bhatt and Dharmendra Bhojak.
SEBI alleged that the noticees traded in the stock and reversed their positions with each other, so that artificial volume gave a false or misleading appearance of trading, in breach of Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. A show cause notice was issued on 31 December 2019, and for some noticees it was served by email after postal delivery failed.
The order finds the allegation made out against four of the noticees and treats the reversal trades as a fraudulent and deceptive device. The adjudicating officer noted that the gain to the noticees and the loss to investors could not be quantified on the record.
He imposed a penalty of Rs 5,00,000 on each of the four under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, Rs 20,00,000 in total, payable within 45 days. Because Dharmendra Bhojak had died, the notice against him was disposed of with no penalty.
The record does not show whether any noticee appealed, whether the penalties were paid, or any profit made. The order imposes no market bar and describes no criminal case.
This library tags the matter as matched orders (reversal trades creating artificial volume). 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
- 2022-07-28 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEBI v. Shreedhar Yellaiah Kodam (synchronized trades, Well Pack Papers, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-09-22 | Matched Orders , Price Manipulation | — | dismissed |
| SEC v. Corey Ortiz (free riding and parking, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-03 | Free Riding And Parking , Matched Orders | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Hanif Shekh and others (price and volume manipulation in five scrips, Mauria Udyog and others, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-06-30 | Matched Orders , Pump And Dump +1 | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Christopher Flagg, Daquan Lloyd and Travis Treusch (free riding and parking, 2026) | SEC | 2026-04-30 | Free Riding And Parking , Matched Orders | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Harsha Ishvarbhai Solanki and others (trading in ANI Integrated Services, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-02-12 | Price Manipulation , Matched Orders | — | judgment |
| SEBI adjudication orders on illiquid stock options at BSE (2026 batch) | SEBI (India) | 2026-01-05 | Matched Orders | — | judgment |