SEBI v. Jils Raichand Madan (Aadhaar Ventures preferential-allotment funding, 2024)
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 28 March 2024 a SEBI adjudicating officer disposed of a show cause notice against Jils Raichand Madan, named as an executive director of Aadhaar Ventures India, over alleged funding of its 2013 preferential allottees, finding the material insufficient to prove he was a director.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2024-03-28 |
| Date resolved | 2024-03-28 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Aadhaar Ventures India Limited shares issued by preferential allotment |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Jils Raichand Madan |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
SEBI adjudicating officer Shashi Kumar Valsakumar issued this order on 28 March 2024. The sole noticee is Jils Raichand Madan, who was named in SEBI's notice as an executive director of Aadhaar Ventures India Limited.
SEBI had investigated whether the company funded the people who received its preferential allotment of 11 March 2013, one of three allotments it made between 2009 and 2013. The case against the noticee was that the allotment had been made without complying with the capital-issue regulations on pricing, and that this, together with the alleged funding, breached section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations 2003. The proceedings had reached the stage of recovery and attachment of his bank accounts before he appeared.
He told the adjudicating officer that he had never been a director, that his name and documents had been misused and his signature forged by another man who had since died, that he had little education and had never traded, and that the address on the notice was not his. The officer noted that he had not filed a police complaint, but found that the company's filings at the registrar did not match his address or signature and that tax-authority statements supported his account. The officer concluded that the material was not enough to establish the charge with certainty.
The notice was disposed of as against him without any penalty, though SEBI kept the liberty to proceed again if his statements prove untrue.
The record does not show what happened to the company or to the other directors named in the same proceedings, or whether the funding allegation was ever proved against anyone.
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.