SEBI v. Anil Kumar and others (CCL 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-65591-matched-orders-2022) by email

In November 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer found that CCL International's promoter and two connected entities colluded with counterparties to create artificial volume in the illiquid stock in 2011, and that a separate trader nudged the price up with tiny orders. Penalties totalling Rs 20 lakh were imposed, and the case against a struck-off company was treated as abated.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

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

SEBI adjudicating officer Soma Majumder issued this order on 29 November 2022 over trading in CCL International Limited, listed on BSE, between 21 June and 30 December 2011. The noticees were Anil Kumar (promoter and director of CCL), Tanvi Fincap Private Limited (a promoter entity), Rama Anil Gupta Associates Pvt. Ltd., Kansabati Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., and Sayuj Pallithazath Arumugham.

SEBI began with a complaint that the promoters and associates were manipulating the stock. It alleged that a group of major net sellers, among them Kansabati, exited the illiquid scrip by selling to a small set of buyers (Rama Anil Gupta Associates, Western Fincap and Ultra Tech Products) whose orders were placed at nearly the same moments as the sellers' orders. SEBI alleged that the buyers were tied to the promoter through a shared mobile number, an accountancy relationship and later amalgamation into Tanvi Fincap, and that these non-genuine trades gave a false appearance of volume. Separately, Mr Arumugham was alleged to have repeatedly placed tiny orders to lift the last traded price.

The officer found the charges established against Mr Kumar, Tanvi Fincap and Rama Anil Gupta Associates for creating a misleading appearance of trading and manipulating volume, and against Mr Arumugham for price manipulation through minuscule orders. The officer did not accept the charge that Mr Arumugham created a false appearance of trading, because his volumes were small and no further evidence was shown. The case against Kansabati was held abated because the company had been struck off the companies register and so no longer existed.

The officer imposed Rs 15,00,000 jointly and severally on the first three noticees and Rs 5,00,000 on Mr Arumugham, Rs 20,00,000 in all, under section 15HA of the SEBI Act. The order records that no quantifiable gain or investor loss was shown and no earlier similar default.

The record does not show whether the penalties were paid or appealed. Entities named as sellers that have been struck off were not before the officer, and no criminal case is described.

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. 2022-11-29 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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.