The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) on Wednesday refused to remain an interim order of the Securities and Trade Board of India (SEBI) that barred Gensol Engineering Ltd (GEL) and its promoter-directors Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi from accessing the securities market amid allegations of fund diversion, forgery and deceptive disclosures.
SAT directed Gensol to file its reply to the interim order handed by SEBI and additional directed the market regulator to move a remaining order inside 4 weeks of listening to Gensol.
SEBI in April barred Gensol Engineering and its promoters from the securities markets until additional orders in a case associated to alleged fund diversion and governance lapses. The regulator has additionally debarred Anmol and Puneet Singh Jaggi from holding the place of a director or key managerial personnel in Gensol till additional orders.
Additional, the markets watchdog directed GEL to placed on maintain the inventory cut up introduced by it.
The order got here after the SEBI obtained a grievance in June 2024 referring to the manipulation of share value and diversion of funds from GEL and thereafter began analyzing the matter. General, brothers Anmol and Puneet Singh Jaggi, promoters of EPC agency Gensol and EV cab service BluSmart, allegedly diverted Rs 262 crore — loaned by government-owned lending companies to obtain 1,700 electrical vehicles — in the direction of private indulgences and related-party entities.
Primarily based on its investigation, SEBI additionally discovered that GEL misled buyers by claiming it had obtained pre-orders for 30,000 of its newly launched EVs on the Bharat Mobility International Expo in January.
In a 29-page interim order, SEBI mentioned, “The prima facie findings have proven mis-utilisation and diversion of funds of the corporate (GEL) in a fraudulent method by its promoter administrators, Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi, who’re additionally the direct beneficiaries of the diverted funds”.
In its enchantment earlier than SAT, GEL contended that the SEBI order is “unlawful, unjustified, and unwarranted,” and fails to satisfy the statutory threshold for issuing such interim instructions with out a listening to.
Story continues beneath this advert
The corporate additionally argued that the order doesn’t set up any urgent urgency, stating that the investigation stemmed from a grievance obtained almost 10 months earlier in June 2024. It accuses SEBI of misusing its powers beneath Sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act.
GEL claimed that SEBI relied on ‘selective’ and biased information and offered a skewed narrative whereas ignoring explanations and enterprise context behind the transactions.
© The Indian Categorical Pvt Ltd