SEBI v. Indra Pratap Gajraj Singh (Octant Interactive Technologies circular trading, remand dismissal, 2025)

Dismissed

✓ 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; 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-97977-wash-trading-2025) by email

In November 2025 a SEBI adjudicating officer re-examined a 2019 Rs 1 crore penalty that the Securities Appellate Tribunal had set aside, and concluded that the material did not establish that the proprietor of a trading firm took part in circular trading and price manipulation. The proceedings were disposed of without penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

The adjudicating officer, Amit Kapoor, issued this order on 27 November 2025 about Indra Pratap Gajraj Singh, shown as proprietor of Amizara Securities and Finance. A 2019 SEBI order had imposed a Rs 1 crore penalty on him, and on 3 July 2025 the Securities Appellate Tribunal set it aside and told SEBI to reconsider after hearing him.

The original investigation covered trading in Octant Interactive Technologies Limited from January to September 2009. SEBI alleged that promoter entities and connected entities indulged in circular trading and reversal of trades and helped manipulate the price, in breach of the fraud provisions of the PFUTP Regulations. The 2013 show cause notice named the noticee as one of those entities.

The noticee told the officer that he had been employed by a chartered accountant, Kamal Rathi, that he knew nothing of the firm or its trades, that his documents had been forged to open it, and that he had since filed police complaints and sent a legal notice. He also relied on statements, including one by Mr Rathi to the income tax authorities, and on an income tax tribunal order describing a nominee who had signed papers for commission.

The officer concluded that his role appeared entirely passive and that the material did not suffice to establish a violation of the PFUTP Regulations charged. The proceedings under the 2013 and 2014 notices were disposed of without a penalty. The order does not decide anything about Mr Rathi or the other entities in the original matter.

This record does not show whether SEBI appealed, whether the police complaints led to any criminal case, or how the trading in the stock was ultimately treated for the other noticees.

This library tags the matter as wash (circular) trading and price manipulation (alleged, not established). 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 2 techniques 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.

• Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2025-11-27 SEBI adjudication order on 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

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.