SEBI v. A. K. Capital Services Limited and others (DHFL debenture issue, settlement, 2025)
Settled
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.
In October 2025 SEBI settled with five companies of the A. K. Capital group over the 2018 public issue of Dewan Housing Finance debentures, in which the group was alleged to have financed 911 applicants and arranged guaranteed exits for them. The applicants neither admitted nor denied the allegations and paid indicative amounts of Rs 4.33 crore plus disgorgement and interest.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2025-10-16 |
| Date resolved | 2025-10-16 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | fixed income |
| Instruments | Dewan Housing Finance Limited non-convertible debentures |
| Venue | BSE, NSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | A. K. Capital Services Limited ; A. K. Stockmart Private Limited ; A. K. Capital Finance Limited ; E-Ally Securities (India) Private Limited ; Ridhi Sidhi Distributors Private Limited |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- 43.3m INR
What is alleged to have happened
This settlement order of 16 October 2025 covers five related applicants: the merchant banker A. K. Capital Services, the stock broker A. K. Stockmart, the non-bank lender A. K. Capital Finance, and two companies, E-Ally Securities (earlier Kodai Tradeplace) and Ridhi Sidhi Distributors (earlier Naman Vincom). They applied on their own initiative, before any show cause notice, to settle enforcement proceedings that might be started.
The matter concerns the public issue of non-convertible debentures by Dewan Housing Finance Limited in May 2018, which raised Rs 10,944.79 crore. SEBI alleged that the group, using powers of attorney, submitted bids for 14,08,015 debentures on behalf of 911 applicants. The lending arm allegedly lent them money at 10.5 to 11 per cent to apply for debentures with a coupon of 8.9 to 9 per cent. After allotment the group allegedly sold the debentures off-market to the two exit-provider companies, funded by the group, giving the applicants a guaranteed profitable exit on listing day or the next day, in return for a share of commissions. SEBI put the group's net gain at Rs 26,05,075. The alleged violations were of regulation 4 of the PFUTP Regulations together with merchant-banker and stock-broker conduct rules.
The applicants proposed revised terms that the advisory committee recommended and the panel of whole-time members accepted in September 2025. The indicative amounts were Rs 54.68 lakh, Rs 1.09 crore, Rs 96 lakh, Rs 88 lakh and Rs 86 lakh, Rs 4.33 crore in all. Four applicants also disgorged the alleged gain of Rs 72.08 lakh in total and paid simple interest of 12 per cent on it, Rs 56.04 lakh in total. The money was remitted by 3 October 2025.
The record does not show any finding on the merits, because a settlement order makes none, nor any investor loss.
This library has no technique that fits financed applications and guaranteed exits in a debt issue, so the matter is tagged with none. 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
- 2025-10-16 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.