SEBI v. Arun Panchariya (Winsome Yarns GDR issue, 2024)

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-83228-market-abuse-2024) by email

On 7 May 2024 a SEBI adjudicating officer, acting on a partial tribunal remand, reduced the penalty on Arun Panchariya over the 2011 loan-funded GDR issue of Winsome Yarns from Rs 25 crore to Rs 15 crore.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

150m 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 Barnali Mukherjee issued this order on 7 May 2024 against Arun Panchariya in the matter of the GDR issue of Winsome Yarns Limited. An October 2020 adjudication order had imposed a Rs 25 crore penalty for violating section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations 2003. On appeal, the Securities Appellate Tribunal in November 2023 upheld the finding on the first leg of the transaction, the issue of the GDRs itself, but set aside the finding on the second leg, the conversion of the GDRs into shares sold to investors in India, because his connection to the entities in that leg had not been shown and a bundle of documents had not been supplied to him. It sent the matter back for a fresh decision and a reconsideration of the penalty.

SEBI's investigation covered March and April 2011 across several Indian companies that issued GDRs overseas. After he was given the missing documents, the officer reviewed a table of links between him and the entities in the second leg, including companies of which he was said to be a director, shareholder or beneficial owner, and the Vintage FZE subscriber vehicle, and considered his objections that he was not the beneficiary and that there was no proof of a flow of money to him.

The officer imposed a penalty of Rs 15 crore under section 15HA, payable within 45 days, saying it matched the violations the tribunal had upheld. No market restriction was imposed in this order.

The record does not show whether he appealed again or paid, the size of the GDR issue, or what Indian investors lost. Other orders against him over 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. 2024-05-07 SEBI adjudication order on partial 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.