SEBI v. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited and others (accounting for corporate guarantees, 2024)

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. 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-90220-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2024) by email

In December 2024 a SEBI adjudicating officer found that Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited and its directors and chief financial officers had misstated its accounts, notably by mishandling corporate guarantees given for a group lender. The order imposed monetary penalties on seven noticees totalling Rs 54,00,000.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

5.4m 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, Asha Shetty, issued the order on 27 December 2024 under both the SEBI Act and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. The noticees were Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited, a Jaypee Group power company, its chairman Manoj Gaur, vice chairman Sunil Kumar Sharma, Suren Jain (chief financial officer and later chief executive), whole-time director Praveen Kumar Singh, former director M K V Rama Rao and chief financial officer R K Porwal.

SEBI investigated the years 2018-19 to 2020-21, looking back to 2012-13. Its notice alleged that the books did not give a true and fair view because of how the company accounted for corporate guarantees given to lenders of group companies. For example, a guarantee of about USD 150 million to State Bank of India for a loan of its then parent, Jaiprakash Associates Limited, was classified as a non-performing asset from 2016, yet the company allegedly did not disclose it as a contingent liability in early years or make provision when required, and its auditors qualified the treatment for five consecutive years.

The order finds that the financial statements were misrepresented because correct accounting practices were not followed, and that the directors and chief financial officers were involved in or aware of it. It records breaches of the fraud and unfair trade practice regulations, the listing regulations and the earlier listing agreement.

Penalties were imposed under section 15HA, section 15HB and section 23H of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act: Rs 14,00,000 on the company, Rs 7,00,000 on each of Mr Jain, Mr Sharma, Mr Gaur and Mr Singh, and Rs 6,00,000 on each of Mr Rama Rao and Mr Porwal, Rs 54,00,000 in all. No restraint from the securities market was ordered.

The record does not show whether the order was appealed, whether the penalties were paid, or what effect the accounting had on the share price. The matter concerns published accounts, not a trading scheme.

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. 2024-12-27 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.

• SEBI order
• Order (PDF)

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.