SEBI v. Arun Panchariya and Mukesh Chauradiya (Hiran Orgochem GDR issue, 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-73787-market-abuse-2023) by email

On 11 July 2023 a SEBI adjudicating officer, re-deciding after a tribunal remand, penalised Arun Panchariya Rs 25 crore and his associate Mukesh Chauradiya Rs 20 lakh over the 2010 loan-funded GDR issue of Hiran Orgochem.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

252m 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 11 July 2023. It concerns two noticees, Arun Panchariya, a UK-based financier, and Mukesh Chauradiya, the managing director and signatory of Vintage FZE, a Dubai company beneficially owned by Mr Panchariya. The Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside an earlier 2020 penalty order in June 2023, for lack of service on Mr Panchariya and for insufficient evidence against Mr Chauradiya, and sent the matter back.

SEBI alleged that Hiran Orgochem Ltd., then listed on the BSE, issued 1,538,462 global depository receipts worth USD 10 million in May 2010 and that Vintage was the only subscriber. Vintage allegedly paid with a loan from EURAM Bank, and Hiran pledged the issue proceeds as security for that loan, so the issue would not have happened without it. When Vintage defaulted, the bank took about USD 4.95 million from Hiran's account in 2013, so SEBI said roughly half of the underlying shares were issued without proper consideration. SEBI alleged the whole structure was devised by Mr Panchariya, and that the converted shares were then sold to Indian investors through connected entities.

The adjudicating officer reviewed the evidence and held that Mr Panchariya devised and carried out a fraudulent scheme in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations 2003, in a pattern repeated with other Indian issuers. Mr Chauradiya was held to have taken part as an associate who signed for Vintage. The officer described the scheme as one for private gain at the cost of Indian investors.

The penalties under section 15HA were Rs 25 crore on Mr Panchariya, which the officer called the maximum, and Rs 20 lakh on Mr Chauradiya, a total of Rs 25.20 crore payable within 45 days. No market restriction was imposed in this order.

The record does not show whether either man appealed again, whether any money was collected, or how much Indian investors lost on the converted shares.

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. 2023-07-11 SEBI adjudication order on remand

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.

Same matter

The library links these 9 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.