SEBI v. Manoj Chhaganalal Rathod HUF (order placement and deletion, Global Infratech and Finance, 2022)

Judgment entered

✓ 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-63372-market-abuse-2022) by email

A SEBI adjudicating officer fined a Hindu undivided family Rs 8 lakh in September 2022 for repeatedly entering and deleting large buy and sell orders in Global Infratech and Finance shares on BSE, which the order finds created a false picture of depth in a thinly traded stock.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

800k 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

A SEBI adjudicating officer in Mumbai decided this matter on 26 September 2022. The sole noticee is the Manoj Chhaganalal Rathod HUF, acting through its karta. The stock is Global Infratech and Finance Limited, listed on BSE. The same investigation period produced a separate order, of 23 September 2022, about a text-message and website campaign in the stock.

SEBI examined 20 December 2017 to 15 February 2018. It found that the HUF placed 1,597 orders for about 88.9 lakh shares and deleted 726 of them, about 55.6 lakh shares or roughly 62.6 per cent of the quantity it added. The deleted quantity equalled about 55.7 per cent of all trading in the stock during the period and about 181 per cent of the HUF's own executed trades of about 30.8 lakh shares. SEBI alleged that the orders were placed and deleted in an illiquid stock to mislead investors, in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a) to (d) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations.

The HUF admitted that it placed and deleted the orders as shown in the exchange log, but argued that BSE had not classified the stock as illiquid, that other traders' deletions were not examined, and that 508 of the 726 orders were simply cancelled by the exchange at day end. The officer rejected these points, noting that the case rested on SEBI's own review of price and volume data and was confined to this noticee's orders.

The order finds a deliberate strategy of placing and deleting large orders, disproportionate to the quantities actually traded and with no intention of executing them, to create artificial depth and induce investors to trade, and imposes a penalty of Rs 8,00,000 under section 15HA.

The record does not show any profit made by the HUF, how investors reacted, or whether the order was appealed.

This library tags the matter as spoofing (large orders entered and deleted without intent to execute). 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.

• Spoofing — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-09-26 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
• SEBI order (PDF)

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.