SEBI v. Oriental Trimex Limited and others (fictitious sales in financial statements, 2026)

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-99823-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2026) by email

In February 2026 a SEBI adjudicating officer found that Oriental Trimex booked fictitious purchases and sales with 22 entities over three years to inflate its financial statements, with two marble companies and their director helping. Penalties run from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 50 lakh, but the order's table leaves one noticee's amount unclear.

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 79-page order on 18 February 2026 against ten noticees: the company, its promoters Rajesh and Savita Punia, its chief financial officer Om Prakash Sharma, two marble companies Mirage and Nirmal and their director Abhishek Jain, and three audit-committee members Vivek Seth, Jitendra Gupta and Rakesh Takyar.

SEBI examined the company's financial statements for April 2017 to March 2020 and alleged that it booked fictitious purchases and sales with 22 entities, with goods moving in a circle through brokers and the two marble companies, and that the reported figures misled the market and breached the listing rules. The order says fictitious revenue made up about 80 percent, 90 percent and 48 percent of reported revenue in the three years.

The order finds that the company, both promoters and the chief financial officer violated the fraud provisions of the PFUTP Regulations and the listing regulations, that the marble companies and Mr Jain aided the scheme by supplying fictitious entries, and that Mr Jain did not furnish information summoned by investigators. It finds the audit-committee members breached the listing rules. The officer also recorded that the noticees tried to mislead the proceedings with fake documents.

The penalties are Rs 50 lakh for the company with the two promoters, Rs 5 lakh for the chief financial officer, Rs 20 lakh for the two marble companies, with Mr Jain also penalised, and Rs 5 lakh each for two audit-committee members. The table's layout does not make clear whether the Rs 50 lakh and Rs 20 lakh amounts are shared by the noticees grouped with them or Mr Jain's own figure, so this record states no single total.

The record does not show appeals, payment, or any penalty on the tenth noticee. It imposes no market ban.

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. 2026-02-18 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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.