SEBI v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited and others (IPO proceeds diversion, 2023)

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. 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-72485-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2023) by email

In June 2023 a SEBI executive director found that Shilpi Cable Technologies diverted IPO money raised in 2011 to purposes and entities not disclosed in its prospectus, and gave misleading information about it. Two directors were barred from the market for a year, told to recover about Rs 50 crore for the company, and fined Rs 5 lakh each.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

1m 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

This final order was issued on 13 June 2023 by Manoj Kumar, an executive director of SEBI. The noticees are Shilpi Cable Technologies Limited, which raised about Rs 55.87 crore in a 2011 initial public offer of 80,98,145 shares at Rs 69, and three of its officers: Mukesh Gupta, Manish Goel and Ghanshyam Pandey.

SEBI investigated how the IPO money was used and alleged that it was diverted from the objects stated in the prospectus, that false and vague information was given in the notice to the 2011 shareholders' meeting about changing those objects, and that incorrect disclosures were made to the exchanges. The show cause notice of August 2021 relied on the Companies Act, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, the listing agreement, the ICDR Regulations and the anti-fraud provisions of section 12A of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations.

The order finds that the company deviated in deploying the proceeds without the required approvals, did not disclose used and unused proceeds properly in its balance sheets, transferred IPO money to entities of doubtful standing, and moved Rs 6.05 crore to a promoter group company. It found the charges established against all noticees, with Mr Pandey given the benefit of doubt on one listing-agreement allegation. It treated the delay since 2011 as a mitigating factor. No directions were issued against the company, which had been in liquidation since May 2019, and the case against Mr Gupta abated on his death in April 2021.

Mr Goel and Mr Pandey must take steps within six months to call back and return Rs 50.05 crore of diverted or misused funds to the company, with a compliance report certified by an independent merchant banker. They were also barred from the securities market and from roles in listed companies or registered intermediaries for one year, and fined Rs 5 lakh each under section 15HA, Rs 10 lakh in all.

The order is an administrative sanction, not a criminal judgment, and describes no criminal case. The record does not show whether the money was recovered, whether the directors appealed, or whether the penalties were paid.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure. 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2023-06-13 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
• 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.