SEBI v. Roongta Rising Stock Pvt. Ltd. (Mishka Finance and Trading Ltd, 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.
In July 2023 a SEBI whole-time member suspended the stockbroker registration of Roongta Rising Stock for one year, holding that it breached the anti-fraud rules in the run-up of Mishka Finance and Trading shares from Rs 5.50 to Rs 327.25 in 2013 and 2014. The finding followed earlier SEBI and tribunal rulings that the order treated as settled.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2023-07-21 |
| Date resolved | 2023-07-21 |
| Court | SEBI whole-time member (intermediary proceeding) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Mishka Finance and Trading Ltd shares |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | Stockbroker registration suspended for 1 year |
| Defendants | Roongta Rising Stock Pvt. Ltd. |
| Also named elsewhere | Roongta Rising Stock Pvt Ltd |
| Techniques | Price manipulation |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
This final order was issued on 21 July 2023 by Ashwani Bhatia, a whole-time member of SEBI, under the Intermediaries Regulations. The noticee is Roongta Rising Stock Pvt. Ltd., a SEBI-registered stock broker. The shares are those of Mishka Finance and Trading Ltd, a company listed on BSE whose trading had been suspended from 2002 to 2012 for non-payment of listing fees.
A designated authority's show cause notice of March 2020 recorded an unusual rise: from Rs 5.50 on 14 February 2013 to Rs 327.25 on 15 January 2014, followed after a share split by a further rise to Rs 49.90, with a large increase in volume. The company's share capital was only 4,98,000 shares, entirely in physical form and held by seven connected holders. Between December 2011 and February 2013 they transferred almost all of it off market, in physical form, to 383 entities on twelve dates, and the promoters said they sold through the broker and were paid mainly by it.
The order found that the broker had traded in a suspended security and issued fake contract notes, as SEBI had held earlier and the Securities Appellate Tribunal had confirmed. It declined to reopen what the tribunal had decided and held the violations of Regulations 3(a) to (d) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations established, together with exchange rules and the stock broker code of conduct, and found the broker had indulged in manipulation and malpractices.
It accepted the designated authority's recommendation to suspend the broker's certificate of registration for one year, taking account of the interests of existing clients. The order takes effect after 30 days. No monetary penalty was ordered.
This is a regulatory sanction on an intermediary, not a criminal judgment. The record does not show what sanctions fell on the 383 recipients or the promoters, whether the broker appealed this order, or any gain figure.
This library tags the matter as price manipulation (by a broker). 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.
- Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2023-07-21 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEBI v. Shreedhar Yellaiah Kodam (synchronized trades, Well Pack Papers, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-09-22 | Matched Orders , Price Manipulation | — | dismissed |
| SEBI v. Debock Industries Limited and others (fictitious issues, inflated sales and diverted rights-issue funds, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-08-28 | Misleading Issuer Disclosure , Price Manipulation | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Varanium Cloud Limited and others (false accounts, diverted IPO funds and share sales, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-08-25 | Misleading Issuer Disclosure , Price Manipulation | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Abhay Dwivedi and others (YouTube promotion, Decillion Finance, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-08-03 | Social Media Ramps , Price Manipulation | — | judgment |
| CFTC v. George Santos (price manipulation, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-07-31 | Price Manipulation | $17.5k | settled |
| SEBI v. Amesh Surajlal Jaiswal and others (Telegram tips, Akash Infra-Projects, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-07-28 | Social Media Ramps , Price Manipulation | — | judgment |