sebi:ORDER/AK/RK/2025-26/31601-31602
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Not fully determinable from excerpt; appears to be a finding that material on record is insufficient to prove the charge of disseminating misleading information
Provisions invoked
- s. 15J
- s. 65
- s. 63
- s. 229
Regulations
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Nilesh Jagetiya
- Purav Patel
Holding
The adjudicating authority found that the material available on record was not sufficient to ascertain whether the Noticees disseminated misleading information in the scrip of Hemo Organic Limited (HOL) through YouTube videos on 'Money Wise' and 'The Advisor'.
Full text
Adjudication Order in the matter of Hemo Organic Limited Page 2 of 19 2024. Pursuant to the transfer of matter, undersigned was appointed as AO, vide
Adjudication Order in the matter of Hemo Organic Limited Page 3 of 19 7. In the interest of natural justice and in terms of Rule 4(3) of the SEBI Adjudication Rules, an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter was granted to the Noticees on February 13, 2025, vide hearing notice dated February 04, 2025. Further, vide the said hearing notice, document sought by AR of the Noticees was also provided. Vide letter dated February 08, 2025, AR of the Noticees sought an adjournment of the hearing scheduled on February 13, 2025 and extension of time to file reply in the matter. The said requests of the AR was acceded to and therefore, hearing in the matter was rescheduled to March 03, 2025, vide email dated February 12,
Adjudication Order in the matter of Hemo Organic Limited Page 4 of 19 further an opportunity to file reply in the matter was given till March 08, 2025. Vide email dated March 08, 2025, AR of the Noticees 1 and 2 submitted reply vide letters dated February 28, 2025 and March 08, 2025 respectively. However, AR of the Noticees did not attend the hearing on March 08, 2025 and again vide email dated March 19, 2025 requested to put the instant proceedings on abeyance and adjourn the hearing to any date after March 20, 2025. Vide email dated March 24, 2025, Noticees were extended another opportunity of hearing on April 02, 2025. AR of the Noticees again, vide email dated April 02, 2025 requested to adjourn the hearing on the ground that their counsel was travelling abroad. Therefore, vide email dated April 15, 2025, another opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Noticees on April 21, 2025. In response to the same, vide email dated April 19, 2025, AR of the Noticees again requested to ajourn the hearing to any date after April 21, 2025, on the ground that the matter was sub-judice. Thereofore, vide email dated May 16, 2025, hearing in the matter was rescheduled to May 23, 2025. Another adjournment was sought by AR of the Noticees, vide email dated May 22, 2025, vide which, it was requested to reschedule the hearing as per the convenience of the office of the AO. Therefore, last opportunity of hearing in the matter was granted to the Noticees on June 10, 2025, vide email dated May
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:ORDER/AK/RK/2025-26/31601-31602. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.