SEBI v. Manish Mishra and others (YouTube promotion of GG Engineering, 2025)

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; 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-98502-social-media-ramps-2025) by email

In December 2025 a SEBI adjudicating officer found that the operator of two YouTube channels posted false claims of a Rs 600 crore government order for GG Engineering while connected traders gave liquidity so earlier shareholders could sell. Four of 43 noticees were penalised Rs 50 lakh jointly and severally.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

5m 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

The adjudicating officer, Amit Kapoor, issued this 70-page order on 19 December 2025 against 43 noticees, including a company and its related entities, and individuals tied to an earlier rights issue of GG Engineering Limited. Only four were penalised: Manish Mishra, Anshu Mishra, Sunil Bhandari and Rekha Bhandari.

SEBI alleged that two YouTube channels, Profit Yatra and Midcap Calls, run by Mr Mishra, claimed that the company had won an order worth Rs 600 crore from a state government, that the price would reach Rs 20 in three months and Rs 100 in a year from about Rs 1.77, and gave a buy recommendation. The company told the exchange no such order was received. SEBI said volumes rose sharply after the videos, that a group of linked net sellers offloaded rights-issue shares to new buyers, and that 25 noticees placed and deleted large orders.

The order accepts that Mr Mishra, Anshu Mishra and the two Bhandaris ran a coordinated scheme to induce purchases and created artificial volume, and that the Bhandaris placed and deleted orders to build false depth, which Mr Bhandari had described in his own statement as a deal to give liquidity. It finds violations of section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act and regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. For the other 39 noticees, it held that links through calls and bank transfers did not prove they knew of or joined the scheme, and it found no synchronised or circular trading among them.

The penalty is Rs 50,00,000 under section 15HA, paid jointly and severally by the four, due within 45 days. The officer noted SEBI had taken action against these four in earlier matters.

The record does not show any appeal, payment, investor loss or criminal case, and it does not impose a market ban in this order.

This library tags the matter as social media ramping (false YouTube promotion) and spoofing. 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.

• Social media ramps — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Spoofing — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2025-12-19 SEBI adjudication 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

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 2 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.