SEBI v. Gold Line International Finvest Ltd and others (preferential-issue proceeds, 2023)

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. 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-73225-market-abuse-2023) by email

On 28 June 2023 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised Gold Line International Finvest and its director Mahendra Singh Bisht a combined Rs 31 lakh for misusing the proceeds of five preferential allotments made in early 2013, while clearing a second director and nine audit committee members.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

3.1m 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

SEBI adjudicating officer Amit Kapoor issued this order on 28 June 2023 under the SEBI Act and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. It covers twelve noticees: Gold Line International Finvest Ltd, two directors (Mahendra Singh Bisht and Rajesh Narula) and nine people who sat on the company's audit committee at various times.

The company made five preferential allotments between January and March 2013, and because the money was spent over three years SEBI examined the period to June 2016. SEBI alleged that the company, Mr Bisht and Mr Narula misused the proceeds in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations 2003, that the company broke the listing-agreement rule on reporting how proceeds were used, and that the audit committee members failed to review the relevant statements. The order puts the unspent or diverted amount at about Rs 11.7 crore, roughly a quarter of the proceeds, including interest-free loans that had not been repaid.

The officer found the company and Mr Bisht responsible. Mr Narula was cleared, because he held office only a short time, only a small loan of Rs 20 lakh fell in his tenure and he had no link to the borrowers. The audit committee members were not penalised, because the statements they were supposed to review had never been placed before the committee. The officer took into account investor losses of more than Rs 9 crore, no quantifiable gain, and the company's earlier penalties and directions in several matters.

The penalties were Rs 10 lakh on the company under section 15HA and Rs 1 lakh for the listing breach, and Rs 20 lakh on Mr Bisht, a total of Rs 31 lakh, payable within 45 days. No market restriction was imposed.

The record does not show whether the penalties were paid or appealed, or whether any of the loaned money was recovered.

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. 2023-06-28 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.