SEBI v. Arun Panchariya (Teledata Technology Solutions 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-74791-market-abuse-2023) by email

On 31 July 2023 a SEBI adjudicating officer penalised Arun Panchariya Rs 20 lakh over the March 2010 loan-funded GDR issue of Teledata Technology Solutions, in which the company gave the BSE a wrong list of subscribers.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

2m 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

A SEBI adjudicating officer issued this order on 31 July 2023 against Arun Panchariya concerning the global depository receipt issue of Teledata Technology Solutions Ltd., a company listed on the BSE and NSE.

SEBI's investigation covered February and March 2010. It found that Teledata issued 3.5 million GDRs worth USD 36.96 million on 12 March 2010 and that the whole issue was funded by one entity, Vintage FZE, with a dollar loan from EURAM Bank taken under an agreement dated 26 February 2010. The company's board had opened an account at the bank to receive the money, and a pledge agreement gave the bank rights over the proceeds. SEBI alleged that Teledata gave the BSE a wrong list of GDR subscribers, and that when the loan went unpaid an amount equal to about USD 32.53 million was set against the proceeds, so that GDRs of that value were in effect issued without valid consideration.

The officer held that Mr Panchariya, who controlled Vintage, was a party to the scheme and found violations of section 12A of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations 2003. The penalty under section 15HA was Rs 20 lakh. No market restriction was imposed in this order.

The record does not show whether he appealed or paid, or what happened to the shares sold after conversion. Other orders against him on other issuers are catalogued separately.

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. 2023-07-31 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.

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.