SEBI v. Preyashbhai Sathvara and others (PS IT Infrastructure SMS tip allegation, 2022)

Dismissed

✓ 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-64244-price-manipulation-2022) by email

A SEBI adjudicating officer on 18 October 2022 found that price manipulation in PS IT Infrastructure shares was not established against seven traders accused after investors received SMS buy tips. The only penalties, Rs 2 lakh each on three promoter-linked companies, were for failing to make takeover-rule shareholding disclosures.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

SEBI investigated trading in PS IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd, a company listed on BSE, between 18 and 28 March 2018 after a complaint that investors had received text messages under the name HP-Bulls urging them to buy the stock. The eleven noticees were seven traders (Preyashbhai Sathvara, Mehulkumar Tundiya, Rekhaben and Harishkumar Sakariya, Sejalben Sathvara, Suresh Prajapati and Dharmeshbhai Vaghela), three companies linked to the promoters, and one individual, Rathod Mangalbhai Valabhai.

SEBI alleged that the seven traders manipulated the price, in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and the fraud-prevention rules in the PFUTP Regulations, in part by placing small buy orders above the best available sell orders so as to set a higher last traded price. It also charged ten noticees with ignoring SEBI summons, and charged the three companies with not making required shareholding disclosures under the takeover regulations.

The officer rejected the manipulation case. The traders also sold equal quantities over the same period, two had a net negative effect on the last traded price and the third a negligible effect, their trades were a tiny share of volume, and the price had not moved significantly. With the manipulation case gone, the summons charges against the traders failed, as did the summons charges against the other noticees and against Mr Valabhai, whose identity and address were not reliably shown.

The officer did find that the three companies breached the takeover-regulation disclosure rule, noting that their holdings were visible in the company's own shareholding pattern. Each was penalised Rs 2 lakh under section 15A(b), Rs 6 lakh in all. No sanction was imposed on any noticee for market manipulation.

The record does not show whether anyone appealed, who sent the text messages, or what any trader gained or lost.

This library tags the matter as price manipulation (alleged, not established). 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2022-10-18 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.

• SEBI order

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.