Skip to main content

Corruption Case Filed Against SEBI Chairperson ,Whole Time Directors and BSE Officials At ACB CBI Court Mumbai


भ्रष्टाचार में लिप्त है सेबी के अधिकारी , शिकायत दबाने में माहिर है।  बड़ी कंपनी के हितो की रक्षा करते है और इन्वेस्टर्स की अनदेखी। सब कमाने और खाने में लगे है और छोटे लोगो पर ही केस दायर करते है.........

Mumbai: Corruption case against SEBI and BSE top officials filed at Corruption court under CRPC 156(3) by E Filing at Sessions court Mumbai. Investor has invested in Cals refineries LTD Shares Listed at BSE .The company done some irregularities and SFIO inquiry is in process. The trading also stopped by SEBI in this script.

As per BSE record the Cals Refineries LTD listed on 12 Dec 1994  without SEBI compliance . The SEBI passed circular on 18 June 1992 that no issue can be listed at registered exchanges without SEBI compliance . The Cals Refineries listed at BSE without SEBI consent . Due to this fraud investor filed complaint before Scores , SEBI chairperson and WTD Officials of SEBI to take action as per section 15 HA Of SEBI Act 1992 against Cals Refineries and BSE Management. The SEBI has not initially instituted proceedings under the provisions of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 and done settlement with the accused company . They ignored Their duties under section 11 of SEBI Act 1992.  BSE and NSE Officials are also public servant under Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act.

The accused officers will not get protection under section 17A of PC act 1988 as it is not their part of  duty to ignore complaint and do selective investigation. As per complainant the SEBI and BSE Officials has taken bribe of Rs 10 Lac approx from company to deny action under section 15 HA of SEBI act 1988. The prayer is to register FIR under section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988 by ACB or CBI. As per kerla HC Order State ACB can also take action against Central govt Employee . Soon matter will be listed for hearing before Special Judge under PC act .

SEBI Score and smart OTDR is a failed mechanism and it is designed for minor complaints. The SEBI staff did not take action on listing fraud and close complaint by taking bribe from accused company . The smart OTDR administrator are BSE and NSE officials who list the fake companies without SEBI compliance for listing and trading fees to increase exchange revenue by fraud. So they close OTDR complaint with conflict of interest . There is huge corruption in SEBI and many SEBI officers has fixed package from many corporate to ignore their complaints . Every investor to file corruption case at district Corruption court with ACB or CBI Police station under PC act 1988 under CRPC 156(3) for FIR registration . 

Criminal complaint - LMH20210000216C202400008  eFiled CaseCity Sessions Court, MumbaiSapan Shrivastava
Madhabi Puri Buch

SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA       ...Complainant



Age 55 Approx, Female , Occp: Public servant , Chairperson

 SEBI, G BLOCK ,BKC, Bandra , Mumbai 51


Age 55 Approx, Male , Occp: Public servant , WHOLE TIME MEMBER

SEBI, G BLOCK ,BKC, Bandra , Mumbai 51


Age 55 Approx, Male , Occp: Public servant , WHOLE TIME MEMBER

SEBI, G BLOCK BKC, Bandra , Mumbai 51


Age 55 Approx, Male , Occp: Public servant , WHOLE TIME MEMBER

SEBI, G BLOCK BKC,  Bandra , Mumbai 51




Age 60 Approx, Male , Occp: Chairman and Public Interest Directors (BSE)

BSE India

 Floor 25, P J Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai 400001


Age 60 Approx, Male , Occp: MD and CEO (BSE)

BSE India

 Floor 25, P J Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai 400001


(Through  Addl CP, ACB ) , Mumbai


(Through Joint Director, CBI) Mumbai                  ....... Accused 

SEBI ACT 1992 as per section 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be duty of  the Board to protect the interests of the investors in securities and to promote and development of, and to regulate the securities market by such measures as it thinks fit. (2) (e) prohibiting fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to    securities markets;

SEBI   under   the   Securities   and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade   Practices   Relating   to   Securities   Market)   Regulations, 2003.  



15HA. If any person indulges in fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities, he shall be liable to a penalty 2[which shall not be less than five lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty-five crore rupees or three times the amount of profits made out of such practices, whichever is higher]



The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956


Section 2h means shares

Section 17 A compliance of requirement

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, no securities of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ie) of clause (h) of section 2 shall be offered to the public or listed on any recognised stock exchange unless the issuer fulfils such eligibility criteria and complies with such other requirements as may be specified by regulations made by the Securities and Exchange Board of India.



The Supreme Court has recently upheld an order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 2009 against Rakhi Trading Private Limited and others. The judgement is of significant importance primarily because it has explained the role of SEBI in the market in relation to punishing culprits indulging in manipulative practices such as “synchronized trading,” which is a kind of transaction wherein both the buying and the selling order quantities are identical and happen on the same time on the trading platform. The judgement under analysis reiterated the apex court’s outlook regarding the need of transparent norms of trading in securities and of fairness, integrity and transparency in the securities market in India.

SC ,SEBI  Vs.  Rakhi  Trading


Order dated February 8, 2018)

“Fairness, integrity and transparency are the hallmarks of the stock market in India”

.(Paragraph  No.  1 of  the  part  of  the  judgement  authored  by  His  Lordship

Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph).


Nobody intentionally trades for loss. An intentional trading for loss per se, is not a genuine  dealing  in  securities.  The  platform  of  the  stock  exchange  has  been  used for  a non genuine  trade.  Trading  is  always  with  the  aim  to  make  profits.  But  if  one  party consistently  make  loss  and  that  too  in  pre planned  and  rapid  reverse  trades,  it  is  not genuine; it is an unfair trade practice.”

( Paragraph  No.  35 of  the  part  of  the

judgement authored by His Lordship Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph).

Their Lordships have considered similar transactions in the same segment,

“The repeated   reversals   and   predetermined   arrangement   to   book   profits   and   losses respectively,  made  it  clear  that

the  parties  were  not  trading  in  the  normal  sense  and

ordinary  course.    Resultantly,  there  has  clearly  been  a  restriction  on  the  free  and  fair operation of market forces in the instant case.”

(Paragraph No. 38 authored by His Lordship Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph)

“ ....The stock market is not a platform for any fraudulent or unfair trade practice.  The field is open to all the investors.  By synchronization and rapid reverse trade, as has been carried out by the traders in the instant case, the price discovery system itself is affected. 

Except the parties who have prefixed the price, nobody is in the position to participate in the trade.  It also has an adverse impact on the fairness, integrity and transparency of the stock market.”

(Paragraph No. 41 of the part of the judgement authored by

His Lordship Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph ).

“The smooth operation of the securities market and its healthy growth and development

depends  upon  large  extent  on  the  quality  and  integrity  of  the  market.    Unfair  trade practices affect the integrity and efficiency of the securities market and the confidence of the investors.  Prevention of market abuse and preservation of market integrity are the hallmark  of  securities  law  ...”

(Paragraph No.38 of  the  part  of  the  judgment authored  by  Her  Ladyship  Ms.  Justice  R.  Bhanumathi). For this, the Hon’ble Judge  also  relied  on  the  apex  court  observations  in  N.

Narayanan  Vs. Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India(2013) 12 SCC 152 wherein it was inter alia observed

: “Market abuse” impairs economic growth and erodes investor’s confidence.

“Where certain unscrupulous elements are trying to manipulate the market to serve their own interest, it becomes imperative on the part of SEBI to intervene and to curb further mischief and to take necessary action to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the securities market...”

(Paragraph No.42 of the part of the judgment authored by

Her Ladyship Ms. Justice R. Bhanumathi


SEBI Vs. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) 15 SCC 1, which are as under: -

The definition of 'fraud', which is an inclusive definition and, therefore, has to be understood to be broad and expansive, contemplates even an action or

omission, as may be committed, even without any deceit if such act or omission has the effect of inducing another person to deal in securities. Certainly, the definition expands beyond what can be normally understood to be a 'fraudulent act' or a conduct amounting to 'fraud'. The emphasis is on the act of inducement and the scrutiny must, therefore, be on the meaning that must be attributed to the word “induce”…… ……to make inducement an offence the intention behind the representation or misrepresentation of facts must be dishonest whereas in

the latter category of cases like the present the element of dishonesty need not

be present or proved and established to be present. In the latter category of

cases, a mere inference, rather than proof, that the person induced would not

have acted in the manner that he did but for the inducement is sufficient.”


Further, in the case of SEBI Vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed that,

the SEBI Act and the Regulations framed there under are intended to protect the interests of investors in the Securities Market which has seen substantial growth in tune with the parallel developments in the economy. Investors' confidence in the Capital/ Securities Market is a reflection of the effectiveness of the regulatory mechanism in force. All such measures are intended to preempt manipulative trading and check all kinds of impermissible conduct in order to boost the investors' confidence in the Capital market. The primary purpose of the statutory enactments is to provide an environment conducive to increased participation and investment in the securities market which is vital to the growth and development of the economy. The provisions of the SEBI Act and the Regulations will, therefore, have to be understood and interpreted in the above light”.



Delhi High Court

Kimsuk Krishna Sinha vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India & ... on 9 April, 2010

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2010 DEL 1

7. In counter affidavit dated 11th July 2008 filed on behalf of the SEBI a preliminary objection was taken that the Petitioner is not an investor in the securities market and therefore, has no locus standi to file this petition. It was contended that SEPL is an unlisted company and therefore, is not amenable to the SEBI regulations and guidelines.

26. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the SEBI to undertake an investigation into the aforementioned complaints made by the Petitioner and also the averments made in the affidavits and additional affidavits filed by the Petitioner in the instant case. The said inquiry will be undertaken in accordance with law by the SEBI and completed within a period of three months from today. The SEBI will communicate to the Petitioner a copy of report of investigation together with its decision thereon within a further period of two weeks thereafter. If it comes to a conclusion that any consequential action is to be taken the SEBI will do so without awaiting further directions.

27. It is clarified that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the contentions of the parties. The SEBI will proceed in the matter independent of any observations that may have been made by this Court in its previous orders or this order. It will be open to any of the parties, if aggrieved by the decision of the SEBI, to seek appropriate remedies that are available to them in law.

28. The petition and the pending applications are disposed of.


Popular posts from this blog

Bhopal Police Officers Inspectors Mobile Number and E mail ID


Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 2. Court No. 2 3. Court No. 3 4. Court No. 4 5. Court No. 5 6. Court No. 6 7. Court No. 7 8. Court No. 8 9. Court No. 9          9A Court no.10   10. Court No. 11 11. Court No. 12 12. Court No. 13 13. Court No. 14

MP Police Directory DGP Mobile Number Sudhir Saxena

MADHYA PRADESH POLICE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY I D S N B R A N C H N A M E D E S I G N A I O N S T D  C O D E O F F I C E R E S I F A X 1 F A X 2 M O B I L E CUG E  M A I L A D D R E S S 1 1 D G P  O F F I C E S u r e n d r a  S i n h D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 0 2 4 4 3 3 3 6 2 4 4 3 5 0 1 94 25 01 45 35 70 49 10 00 01 dgp mp @m ppo lic e.g ov .in C-1 0, Swa mi Da ya na nd N ag ar Bh op al 2 2 M i l i n d  K a n s k e r A D G / P S O 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 2 6 2 4 4 3 5 2 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 7 2 7 7 7 0 4 9 1 0 0 5 1 0  p s o d g p m p @ m p p o l i c e . g o v . i n  D - 2 / 1 9 , C h a r  I m l i 3 3 P r a d e e p  B h a t i y a J D . ( P  R ) 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 5 2 4 9 1 1 7 2 9 4 2 5 1 7 1 1 1 3 H - 3 9 5 , S a i  A d h a r s h i l a  B a r k h e d a 4 4 D . P .  J u g a d e P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 8 2 6 0 3 6 5 9 3 7049100502 134-A SEC-Sarvadharm Colony, 5 5 N . K .  S h r i v a s t a v a P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 7 5 2 7 0 0 9 4 6 7049155426 G-40/9, S. T.T. Nagar. 6

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

Maharashtra Health Directory Mobile and Email address DHO, Civil Surgeon , Directors

  Contacts Ministers Back Minister Name Contact No. Mail ID   Prof.Dr.Tanajirao Sawant Hon. Minister Public Health and Family Welfare     (O)     (F) Minister of State Name Contact No. Shri.  Hon. State Minister, Public Health 22886025 (O) 22023992 (F) Officers Name Contact No. Mail ID Project Director, Maharashtra State Aids Control Society 24113097/5619/5791   (O) Shri Shivanand Taksale (I.A.S.) CEO, State Health Assurance Society 24999203/204/205 (O)   Mantralaya State Public Health Department,  Mantralaya, Mumbai Telephone - 22610018 Officers Name Department / Section Telephone No in the workshop Expanded Mobile No Email IDs Subject Shri.Sanjay Khandare (I.A.S) Principal Secretary-1. 22617388 22632166 22617999 (F)             204         PA 216  Anti 211      Shri. N.Nawin Sona Secretary-2 22719030 / 22719031   202 / 244 PA 250   Shri. Shivdas Dhule  (PA Shri. Mohite

तोता पालने पर जेल जाओगे , कैद में रखना crime, Parrot Caging

  Crime Under Section 49,51 Of  Wild Life Protection act  तोता पालना तो देश में कॉमन है, ऐसे में उसको पिंजड़े में रखना भी अपराध है? वाइल्डलाइफ एक्ट के मुताबिक,  तोते या किसी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजड़े में कैद करके रखना और उससे किसी भी तरह का लाभ लेने के लिए प्रशिक्षण देना कानूनन अपराध है । भारत में कानून इजाजत नहीं देता कि किसी भी पक्षी को कैद करके रखा जाए। आम तौर पर नागरिक तोतों को पालतू पक्षी मानते हैं लेकिन वन्यजीव अधिनियम 1972 की धारा-4 के तहत इसे या किसी भी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजरे में कैद रखना या पालना गैरकानूनी है। वन्य प्राणी संरक्षण अधिनियम 1972 के अंतर्गत तोता को पालना या पिंजरे में कैद करना दंडनीय अपराध है। यदि किसी व्यक्ति ने तोता पाल रखा हो या उसे पिंजरे में कैद रखा हो तो वन विभाग के नजदीकी कार्यालय में सुपुर्द कर दें। देश भर में तोतों की करीब एक दर्जन प्रजातियां मौजूद हैं और सभी संरक्षित हैं। नियमानुसार तोतों को पालने के लिए वन विभाग की अनुमति जरूरी होती है, लेकिन उन्हें पिंजरे में बंद करने वाले यह अनुमति नहीं लेते हैं। लोग शौकिया तौर पर पिंजरों में रंग-बिरंगे पक्षियों को घरों में

Limitation Act Applicable In Contempt Petition For Condonation Of Delay

  NINE YEARS DELAY CONDONE BY COURT AS RESPONDENT STILL DOING CONTEMPT . Cites 18 docs - [ View All ] Section 20 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Article 215 in The Constitution Of India 1949 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The Special Courts Act, 1979 Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001 Citedby 0 docs S.G.L. Degree College vs Sri Aditya Nath Das, Ias And ... on 24 October, 2018 Smt. Kusumbai W/O Harinarayan ... vs M/S Shreeji Builders And ... on 14 November, 2019 Yogesh Vyas vs Rajesh Tiwari on 31 July, 2019 Sunil Kumar vs Girish Pillai on 31 July, 2019 Pramod Pathak vs Heera Lal Samriya & Others on 13 December, 2021 Madras High Court M.Santhi vs Mr.Pradeed Yadav on 11 April, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM CONTEMPT PETITION No.377 of 2018 M.Santhi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Mr.Pradeed Yadav, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, School Education (HSE-1)

Mehandipur Balaji Trustee Mobile Number

  मेहंदीपुर बालाजी ट्रस्टी का मोबाइल नंबर Dausa: Mehandipur Balaji Black Magic Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Psychological Treatment Phone No. Mehandipur Balaji Temple is famous for saving people from Black Magic and Tantrik Kriya. Lord Balaji lives with Bhairav ji and Pretraj Sarkar. People come here for their Solution of Problems and Manokamna. Any Person affected with bad Spirit will Start Rotating his/her Head. Balaji, Bhairavraj and Pretraj Sarkar can help from Black Magic and Evil Spirits. Mehandipur Balaji Savamani Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Arji Phone No. - +91-9782320445 और +91-9351416114 if any Person want to Solve their Problems then they Should Hire or Contact Pujari (Pandit ji) for Puja Path. Hanuman Kavach is also grace of Mehandipur Balaji. Hanuman Kavach is made after various Pooja Path and Tantra Saadhana. Pujari Mobile Number for Black Magic / Bad Spirit and Tantrik Problems  Solutions in Mehandipur Balaji - +91-9929156094

Bombay High Court Rules Are Not Approved By Anybody.....

  Mumbai: The Supreme court rules are to be approved by president of India as per article 145 . When RTI Filed then president office was not having any record. Supreme court replied that they have been informed that SC Rules 2013 is approved by president of India but they don't have president signature copy.  To get the Bombay High Court rules approval status the RTI application was filed at Bombay High Court. Inspite to give direct reply the PIO gave misleading reply about Bombay High court rules approval. It means that they dont have any approval copy of governor or any . Now it is in practice that to curtail  fundamental rights by making rules. The In persons are victim of this monoply of some officers. They make rules  without any authority . Even the chief justice of High Court did not approve these rules. So without any approval these rules have no value . The Party in person rules claimed that it is approved by all the judges but the Ex Registrar General Mangesh Patil was ha