SEBI v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited and others (alleged concealed related-party loans, Milestone and Rehvar, 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. 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-e6095ed7-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2025) by email

In September 2025 SEBI found that loan dealings between three listed Adani companies and two lenders, raised by a short-seller report, were not related party transactions under the rules then in force and were not fraudulent. It disposed of the proceedings against all eight noticees without any direction.

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

Kamlesh C. Varshney, a Whole Time Member of SEBI, issued this 44-page final order on 18 September 2025. The eight noticees are three listed companies (Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone, Adani Power and Adani Enterprises), Rajesh Adani, Gautam Adani, Jugeshinder Singh, and the two companies on the other side of the loans, Milestone Tradelinks Private Limited and Rehvar Infrastructure Private Limited.

The order stems from the January 2023 report by the US short seller Hindenburg Research, which alleged that Adani Enterprises and Adani Power Mundra had been funded through these two entities via another group company. SEBI investigated and issued a show cause notice alleging that loans between the listed companies and the two entities from 2018-19 to 2022-23 were really related party transactions that were not disclosed or approved as the listing rules required, and that the arrangement was a scheme to conceal them, in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and the fraud provisions of the PFUTP Regulations.

The order holds that the transactions did not count as related party transactions during the period, since the relevant 2021 amendment to the listing regulations applies only prospectively, and refers to the expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court in the Vishal Tiwari case which took a similar view. On the fraud charge it holds that the charge rested on the related-party classification, that no diversion or siphoning of money was alleged, and that the money, with interest, had come back before the investigation began.

It therefore found none of the allegations established, concluded that no liability and no penalty arose, and disposed of the proceedings against all noticees without any direction.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, and the order describes no criminal case. Nothing in it is a finding that any noticee committed fraud.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure (alleged concealment of related party transactions, 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 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. 2025-09-18 SEBI final 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.