Mauria Udyog Ltd. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India on 8 October 2026

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

Appeal No.269 of 2026

Mauria Udyog Limited …..Appellant

(By Mr. Pesi Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rushin Kapadia, Mr. Khushil Shah and Mr. Sumit Kochar, Advocates i/b. Mr. Khushil Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.)

Securities and Exchange Board of India

…..Respondent

(By Mr. Chetan Kapdia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Komal Shah and Mr. Owais Khan, Advocates i/b. Vidhii Partners for the Respondent.)

ORDER ON INTERIM RELIEF

Per: Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

This appeal by Mauria Udyog Limited (‘appellant Company’/‘MUL’ for short) is directed against order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the WTM1, SEBI2 directing debarment for 5 years and disgorgement of ₹18,68,40,551/- jointly and severally with Noticees Nos.8 to 11 (‘MUL Group’ for short) and 1 Whole Time Member 2 Securities and Exchange Board of India

imposing a penalty of ₹1 Crore for violation of PFUTP Regulations3.

2. We have heard Mr. Pesi N. Modi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Chetan Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent – SEBI.

3. Brief facts of the case are:

i. Based on abnormal price rise and volume, SEBI conducted an investigation into the trading of 5 scrips namely, (i) Mauria Udyog Ltd; (ii) 7NR Retail Ltd; (iii) Darjeeling Ropeway Company Ltd; and (iv) GBL Industries Ltd ; listed on the BSE4 and (v) Vishal Fabrics Ltd, listed on BSE and NSE5.

ii. Investigation revealed that there were certain commonalities in the trading pattern of these scrips. One such common feature was that ‘buy’ recommendations for all the five scrips were widely circulated by Hanif Shekh (Noticee No.1) through bulk SMS and on certain websites.

iii. SEBI found that the period of SMS circulation with respect to these five scrips coincided with rise in the prices and 3 SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 4 Bombay Stock Exchange Limited 5 National Stock Exchange of India Limited

volumes in four scrips and only rise in volume in the case of Darjeeling Ropeway Company Limited.

iv. Mauria Udyog Limited (‘appellant Company/MUL’ for short), Noticee No.10 is a public limited company incorporated in 1980. Its shares were originally listed on the Calcutta Stock Exchange and subsequently listed on the BSE Limited on 14.07.2015.

4. Mr. Pesi Modi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Company submitted that appellant Company is also engaged in trading in agro-commodities, employing around 2,000 workers/ contractors and having over 11,713 public shareholders. He submitted that the impugned order has serious civil consequences. The allegation is, trading has taken place in appellant Company’s scrip. Appellant Company is not involved in price and volume manipulation. Appellant’s business is seriously affected as the appellant is not able to raise funds in the market.

5. In reply, Mr. Chetan Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for SEBI argued opposing the interim prayer contending inter alia that the shares of appellant Company were traded by the employees only during the SMS period. Majority of the traders have off-loaded their shares. The manner in which the employees came in possession of the shares is not revealed by the management. The employees who have traded have common email ID, mobile number and address in their demat accounts, ITRs and Bank accounts. He further submitted that an

excel sheet containing the details of 1 to 62 entities with regard to their shares purchased and sold, pay out details etc., were found as an attachment to an email sent by appellant’s CFO Deepak Garg to one Davindar Gupta.

6. Mr. Kapadia further submitted that the sale proceeds of the off-loaded shares have finally reached the promoters of the appellant Company. Therefore, appellant Company is not entitled for any interim relief.

7. We have considered rival submissions.

8. Admitted position is, trading has taken place in appellant Company’s scrip during the SMS period between 21.09.2019 and 27.12.2019. The Company’s shares were initially listed on Calcutta Stock Exchange and later on Bombay Stock Exchange. The employees who have traded were low earning permanent or contractual employees. It is recorded in the impugned order that they have made a blanket submission before SEBI that they were not associated with the price - volume influencers. They have also argued that they have not only sold but also purchased the shares.

9. With regard to the finding in the impugned order that money was transferred to the Company, it was submitted by Mr. Modi that the employees had taken loans and repaid the same. The details provided in Table 29 in the show cause notice show that the total profit earned by the 62 employees is ₹57.93 Crore,

out of which ₹29.17 Crore has been transferred to FOREX companies, ₹20.21 Crore to appellant related entities and ₹2.55 Crore to Hanif Shekh related entities.

10. It is not in dispute that 37 employees have furnished a common postal address i.e. of the appellant Company and 32 employees had bank account in the same branch. It is also not in dispute that the employees were earning between ₹1.91 Lakhs to ₹5.61 Lakhs. They have sold shares valued between ₹86.6 Lakhs to ₹3.26 Crore. It was argued by Mr. Modi that the appellant Company has received only ₹3.62 Crore. If the sum of ₹1.83 Crore received by the connected entity (Vee-Em Infocenter Private Limited) is taken into account, the total amount received by the appellant is about ₹5.45 Crore. He contended that the calculation of disgorgement amount is wholly incorrect. Thus, the Company has admitted receipt of ₹3.62 Crore. Mr. Modi’s another contention is that the employees had sold their shares to repay their loans. As noted above, the profit earned by the employees is about ₹57.93 Crore. No details with regard to the loans and the repayment are on record. Therefore, appellant’s contention that the employees had sold their shares to repay the loans is not acceptable.

11. In the light of the facts recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that appellant Company is not entitled for stay of debarment.

12. Admittedly, appellant Company and its connected entity have received about ₹5.45 Crore.

SEBI has directed disgorgement of ₹18.5 Crore with interest. In our view, interim relief can be granted with condition to deposit 50% penalty and disgorgement.

13. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. Interim prayer for stay of debarment is rejected. ii. There shall be stay of recovery of penalty and disgorgement subject to deposit of 50% of both with the SEBI within four weeks from today. iii. SEBI shall place the amount in an interest bearing account.

Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member

Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member

08.10.2026 RHN RAJALA KSHMI H NAIR Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Date: 2026.10.08 14:00:51 +05'30'