SEBI v. Bharat Gupta (Edynamics Solutions independent director, 2023)
Dismissed
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; 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.
On 23 August 2023 a SEBI adjudicating officer, acting after a tribunal remand, declined to penalise Bharat Gupta, an independent director of Edynamics Solutions, over alleged misrepresentation of its financials and misuse of funds, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2023-08-23 |
| Date resolved | 2023-08-23 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Edynamics Solutions Limited shares |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Bharat Gupta |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
SEBI adjudicating officer Biju S issued this order on 23 August 2023. The sole noticee is Bharat Gupta, named as an independent director of Edynamics Solutions Limited, a company listed on the SME segment of the BSE. An earlier January 2021 order had penalised the company's directors Rs 20 lakh jointly, but the Securities Appellate Tribunal remitted it as to him in March 2023 because he had never received the notice.
SEBI had acted against the company in an interim order of September 2017, and a forensic auditor appointed through the BSE reported that the company had not supplied information and had misrepresented its finances and misused funds. SEBI alleged that Mr Gupta failed in his duty of care as a director and so breached section 12A of the SEBI Act, Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations 2003, the listing regulations and the SEBI directions to provide information.
He argued that he had been appointed without his knowledge, had filed a police complaint over his fraudulent appointment, and had no role in the accounts. The officer noted that a board resolution put financial functions in the hands of two other people, that there was no record of him taking part in day-to-day affairs or board processes, and that the auditor's messages went to the company and not to him. Citing the Companies Act rule limiting independent directors' liability to acts with their knowledge and consent, the officer found the allegations unproved.
The show cause notice was disposed of without any penalty.
The record does not show what became of the company, the other directors or the sums said to have been misused, or whether SEBI appealed.
This library does not assign a technique tag to the matter, because no technique in the library fits the conduct. 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.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.