SEBI has barred the promoters of Osiajee Texfab Limited (OTL), a Punjab-based textile company, along with 17 other connected individuals and entities, from trading in the company’s shares after finding prima-facie evidence of a coordinated scheme to artificially inflate its stock price. The noticees have been given 21 days to file objections and seek a personal hearing, while SEBI’s investigating authority continues a detailed probe into the matter.
In an ex-parte interim order dated July 9, 2026, SEBI found that OTL’s share price surged nearly tenfold, from INR 50.40 on January 30, 2025 to an all-time high of INR 495.50 on May 12, 2026, despite the company reporting nil or negligible revenue from its stated textile business for several years.
The order noted that almost all of OTL’s actual revenue and profit came from its wholly-owned subsidiary, Osiajee Agro Farms, which is engaged in eucalyptus and poplar plantation, even as the company continued to make public statements claiming its textile business was “growing steadily”.
The regulator’s investigation found that the top 10 contributors to the stock’s last traded price during a sharp rally between April 30 and May 14, 2026 collectively accounted for over 67 per cent of the market’s positive price impact, and all traded through a single branch of stock broker Shreni Shares in Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
That branch was headed by Akashdeep Jain, husband of OTL managing director Reema Saroya, and the order flagged that two of the broker’s other employees at the branch were also independent directors of OTL.
Surprise site visits conducted by SEBI on May 20, 2026 at OTL’s registered office and the offices of Shreni Shares and another broker, SSJ Finance & Securities, found no signage, employees, bills, invoices or inventory records indicating genuine business operations at OTL’s premises.
“Such overlap between the management of a listed company and a registered intermediary is highly unusual and raises serious concerns regarding independence of trading activity. Further, one of the most significant facts emerging from the preliminary examination is the absence of evidence regarding placement of orders,” said the order.
SEBI also could not obtain call recordings evidencing order placement by the top LTP contributors despite Shreni Shares having a centralised recording system, and found extensive fund transfers, telephone contacts and synchronised trades linking the Saroya-Jain family group with the top traders and other connected noticees.
“The overlapping financial linkages across different categories underscore that the Noticees formed part of an interconnected network of financial dealings, which is required to be appreciated cumulatively and not in isolation. These financial arrangements prima-facie indicate commonality of purpose and coordination amongst the Noticees to artificially increase the price and volume of shares of OTL so as to induce and deceive innocent investors.” the order said.
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera and the recent Reliance Industries v. SEBI judgment on the scope of “fraud” under the PFUTP Regulations, SEBI held that the cumulative evidence of coordinated trading, misleading disclosures, financial linkages and shared infrastructure prima facie established a fraudulent and manipulative scheme in violation of Section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. The regulator noted with concern that Shreni Shares sold its entire 73,614-share holding in OTL for a gain of Rs 82.56 lakh within seven trading days of the site visit, before the investigation could conclude.
As interim relief, SEBI has restrained all 19 noticees from buying, selling or dealing in OTL shares until further orders, and directed Shreni Shares to deposit its INR 82.56 lakh in wrongful gains in an escrow-linked fixed deposit within 15 days.
“The foregoing prima-facie observations contained in this Interim Order are made on the basis of the material available on record. The Noticees may, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this Order, file their reply/objections, if any, to this Order and may also indicate whether they desire to avail an opportunity of personal hearing on a date and time to be fixed in that regard,” the order noted.
