SEBI v. Dinesh Gupta and others (insider trading, Shilpi Cable Technologies, 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; 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-72781-insider-trading-2023) by email

In June 2023 a SEBI whole-time member found that members of the Gupta family and a related company sold about 24.6 lakh Shilpi Cable shares in March to May 2017 while knowing of a creditor's insolvency demand not yet public, avoiding notional losses of Rs 27.59 crore. They were barred from the market for a year, ordered to disgorge the avoided losses with interest, and fined Rs 70 lakh in total.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

7m 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 order was issued on 19 June 2023 by S. K. Mohanty, a whole-time member of SEBI. It names six noticees: Dinesh Gupta and his HUF, Rajesh Gupta and his HUF, Nirmala Gupta and Ajay Fincap Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The company is Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd, listed on NSE and BSE, which was also the subject of a separate order on misuse of its IPO proceeds. The trading period reviewed ran from 8 March to 11 May 2017.

The allegedly unpublished price-sensitive information was a demand notice of 8 March 2017 from Macquarie Bank for about US$3.01 million (around Rs 19.55 crore), received by the company on 10 March, and the insolvency petition that followed. The company disclosed the petition to BSE on 30 April 2017 and to NSE on 2 May 2017. SEBI said the noticees had access through a chain of ties: the first four had received 64 lakh shares from a promoter company in 2012 at a price well above the market and paid for them two years later without paperwork or interest, and a company in which two of them were promoter directors had lent heavily to Shilpi Cable group entities against pledged shares.

The order finds the insider-trading charge established against the five noticees accused of it, under section 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations. It computes that they sold 24,57,799 shares at average prices of about Rs 218 to Rs 223 while the price after disclosure was about Rs 107.25, which gives avoided notional losses of Rs 27,59,49,133 in total. Separately it finds that the 2012 share transfer to the first four noticees breached the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act.

The sanctions are a one-year bar from the securities market for all six, disgorgement of the avoided losses by the five accused of insider trading with simple interest at 9 per cent a year from 11 May 2017, and penalties under section 15G of the SEBI Act and section 23H of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act totalling Rs 70 lakh. Dinesh Gupta, his HUF and Rajesh Gupta were each fined Rs 15 lakh, Rajesh Gupta HUF Rs 5 lakh, and Nirmala Gupta and Ajay Fincap Rs 10 lakh each.

The order is an administrative sanction, not a criminal judgment, and the record shows no criminal case. The noticees contested the loss calculation and the communication of the information. The record does not show whether they appealed or paid.

This library tags the matter as insider trading. 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2023-06-19 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.