38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Executive

SEBI Penalizes Future Corporate Resources Pvt. Ltd, founder and co-founder of Future group and five others For Insider Trading [READ ORDER]

By ADITI AGGARWAL      05 February, 2021 04:00 PM      0 Comments
SEBI Penalizes Future Corporate Resources Pvt. Ltd, founder and co-founder of Future group and five others For Insider Trading [READ ORDER]

The Securities and Exchange Board (SEBI) of India has penalized Future Corporate Resources Pvt Ltd, Kishore Biyani and Anil Biyani, founder and co-founder of Future group respectively, and five others for insider trading..

The SEBI found that Future Corporate Resources and FCRL Employee Welfare Trust purchased Future Retail's shares prior to the public announcement relating to the demerger of some of its businesses was made on April 20, 2017.

The SEBI further found that trades were authorised by Kishore Biyani and Anil Biyani, who hold beneficial interest in 32% and 15% shares of FCRL, respectively.

PENALTIES IMPOSED:

  • They have been have been prohibited from dealing in securities market for a period of one year.
  • They have been directed to jointly disgorge an amount of Rs 17.78 crore, along with 12% interest from April 20, 2020 onwards till the date of actual payment,which reflects the undue profits made by Biyanis, FCRL and other notices through their trade of shares on the basis of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information(UPSI), as per SEBI.
     
  • FCRL and FCRL Employee Welfare Trust has been additionally directed to disgorge an amount of Rs. 2,75,68,650/- along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from April 20, 2020 till the date of actual payment.
  • An additional penalty of Rupees One Crore each under Section 15G of the SEBI Act, 1992 on FCRL and Biyanis.

The order relates to the trade of shares of Future Retail Ltd (FRL) between March 10, 2017 to April 20, 2017 on the basis of unpublished price sensitive information in contravention of the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading ) Regulations, 2015 ("PIT Regulations, 2015").

  • FCRL, Kishore Biyani and Anil Biyani have also been barred from dealing with the securities of Future Retail Ltd (FRL), whether directly or indirectly, for a period of two years.

CORPORATE VEIL LIFTED:

SEBI Whole Time Member Ananta Barua stated:

Noticee no. 2 (Kishore Biyani) was in possession of UPSI. Noticee no. 2 and 3 (Anil Biyani) opened the trading account of Noticee no. 1 just prior to the impugned trades which were in violation of the provisions of PIT Regulations, 2015. Noticee no. 3 placed order on behalf of Noticeeno. 1. Noticee no. 2 and 3 authorised transfer of funds to Indiabulls for purchase of shares of FRL in the name of Noticee no. 1. Thus, observations made by Hon'ble SAT in Amalendu Mukherjee case (supra), where the Hon'ble SAT has observed that the corporate veil can be lifted to find out the decision maker behind a juristic person, is one of the guiding factors in the present case

Biyanis and Future Corporate Resources disputed that they have indulged in insider trading but added that they did not make any specific submissions regarding wrongful gains made by them The SEBI rejected the submissions of the notices that they were not in possession of the UPSI. Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations, 2015 prohibits insiders from trading in securities when in possession of UPSI.

The SEBI has also clarified that the restraint on dealing with share will not apply to those existing holding of securities in respect of which any scheme of arrangement, which is under Section 230-232 of Companies Act 2013 (approved by NCLT.)

 

[READ ORDER]



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-questions-precedent-on-contractual-bars-to-arbitration-claims-refers-bharat-drilling-to-larger-bench
Trending Judiciary
SC Questions Precedent on Contractual Bars to Arbitration Claims, Refers ‘Bharat Drilling’ to Larger Bench [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court refers the 2009 Bharat Drilling ruling to a larger bench, questioning its use in interpreting contractual bars on arbitration claims.

08 December, 2025 04:45 PM
j-and-k-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-injunction-plea-in-agrarian-reforms-dispute
Trending Judiciary
J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal of Injunction Plea in Agrarian Reforms Dispute [Read Order]

J&K High Court upholds dismissal of injunction plea, ruling that agrarian disputes fall under Agrarian Reforms Act authorities, not civil courts.

08 December, 2025 05:21 PM

TOP STORIES

hostile-india-china-ties-no-extradition-treaty-allahabad-hc-denies-bail-to-chinese-national-in-visa-forgery-case
Trending Judiciary
Hostile India–China Ties, No Extradition Treaty: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Chinese National in Visa Forgery Case [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court denies bail to a Chinese national accused of visa tampering and forging Indian IDs, citing hostile India–China ties and no extradition treaty.

03 December, 2025 12:53 AM
attachment-before-judgment-cannot-cover-property-sold-prior-to-suit-filing-sc
Trending Judiciary
Attachment Before Judgment Cannot Cover Property Sold Prior to Suit Filing: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court holds that property transferred before a suit cannot be attached under Order 38 Rule 5; fraud allegations must be pursued separately under Section 53 TP Act.

03 December, 2025 01:30 AM
sc-holds-no-review-or-appeal-maintainable-against-order-appointing-arbitrator
Trending Judiciary
SC Holds No Review Or Appeal Maintainable Against Order Appointing Arbitrator [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that no review, recall or appeal lies against a Section 11 arbitrator appointment order, reaffirming minimal judicial interference in arbitration.

03 December, 2025 01:40 AM
partner-cannot-invoke-arbitration-clause-without-express-authorisation-of-other-partners-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Partner Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause Without Express Authorisation of Other Partners: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court rules that a partner cannot invoke an arbitration clause or seek appointment of an arbitrator without express authorisation from co-partners.

03 December, 2025 05:19 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email