SEBI impounds Rs 28 crore in Prrsaar-Chaubara F&O manipulation case

The Enforcement Action

The Securities and Exchange Board of India has passed an ex-parte interim order impounding wrongful gains of Rs 28,12,08,542 from two related companies and their four directors, whom it names in a case of alleged cross-segment price manipulation in single-stock futures and options. The order, dated 16 September 2026 and bearing reference number WTM/KV/ISD/ISD-TPD2/32723/2026-27, was signed by Whole Time Member Kamlesh Chandra Varshney and passed under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992.

The order names Prrsaar Sampada Private Limited (PAN AAACK1089Q, formerly Prrsaar Commodities Private Limited) and Chaubara Eats Private Limited (PAN AAACW0088K), along with their directors Ved Prakash Gupta, Priti Gupta, Saroj Gupta and Gaurav Tomar. Per the order, Prrsaar is registered with SEBI as a stock broker, a depository participant and a research analyst. SEBI records that the two firms are connected through a single family and shared a common trading member and dealer.

SEBI states the matter arose from an internal analysis by the National Stock Exchange and SEBI that flagged "abnormally high profit in stock options segment and loss in stock futures segment" by Prrsaar. These are prima facie findings recorded in an interim order; the noticees have not yet been heard. SEBI notes that Prrsaar submitted a trading rationale to the NSE, which SEBI found "does not provide specific justifiable rationale" for the activity. The noticees have 21 days to file objections and may seek a personal hearing.

How the Scheme Worked

According to the order, the noticees adopted a cross-segment strategy that used one segment to move prices and a second, larger position in another segment to bank the profit. SEBI describes the mechanism in four steps.

First, per the order, the entities concentrated their activity in the bottom 100 scrips by market capitalisation among the roughly 211 stocks with an equity derivatives segment at the NSE, because "the price of scrips that are having relatively lower market capitalization can be influenced with lower capital". Second, the order alleges, the entities pre-positioned large orders in at-the-money stock options on one side, buying below and selling above the last traded price, orders that generally sat unexecuted until the futures leg moved.

Third, the order states, the entities traded the same underlying's futures in aggressive net-directional bursts, switching between net-buy and net-sell patches through the day, with the day's net futures holding typically squared off to nil. Because futures and option premiums are linked, SEBI alleges, buying futures above the last traded price lifted the price and the call premiums, executing the pre-positioned sell orders at inflated rates, while selling futures below the price did the reverse. The order gives a worked illustration: a stock at Rs 100 with a call at Rs 5 is pushed to Rs 102 in futures, lifting "the call option premium to rise from 5 to 6", so the pre-positioned sell orders execute richly. Because the option delta position was deliberately larger than the futures position, SEBI alleges, option profits outweighed the intended futures losses.

SEBI details a chronology. The NSE sought a rationale from Prrsaar by letters dated 6 February and 16 March 2026. Per the order, Prrsaar's proprietary activity in stock derivatives then fell sharply from March 2026, while its related entity Chaubara's gross traded value rose from about Rs 466.95 crore in February 2026 to Rs 5,254.27 crore in March 2026, which SEBI reads as "a temporal substitution of trading activity between the two entities". The order computes prima facie wrongful gains of Rs 22.06 crore for Prrsaar and Rs 6.05 crore for Chaubara across 23 scrip days, in stocks including KFinTech, Swiggy, 360ONE, Godrej Properties, UNO Minda, Waaree Energies and Torrent Power.

The Law Invoked

The order records that SEBI examined the conduct against Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) and 4(1) and 4(2)(a), (b) and (e) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003. These provisions prohibit the use of manipulative or deceptive devices, dealing in securities in a fraudulent manner, and specific practices that create a false or misleading appearance of trading or influence prices.

The order also cites Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992, which bar the use of any manipulative or deceptive device, any scheme or artifice to defraud, and any act or practice that operates as a fraud in dealing with listed securities. The directions themselves were issued under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B, the provisions that let SEBI act in the interest of investors, including by impounding proceeds and restraining market access pending investigation.

The order is expressly interim. SEBI states a "detailed investigation/examination" is still required and must be completed "without being influenced by the prima facie findings in this order", underscoring that these are allegations to be tested, not concluded findings.

What Happens Next

The noticees may, within 21 days of receiving the order, file their reply and objections and indicate whether they wish to be heard in person. SEBI would then pass a further order, which could confirm, modify or vacate the interim directions. Any such order can be appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, and from there to the Supreme Court on a question of law.

On the money, the order directs the noticees to deposit the impounded sums into lien-marked fixed deposits in favour of SEBI, and directs banks and depositories to block debits up to those amounts in the meantime. Once the impounded amount is credited, several of the asset-freeze directions fall away and the market-access ban is eased so the noticees may trade in the cash segment but not in equity derivatives. Prrsaar's accounts and activity dealing with client funds are carved out throughout, so that clients are not affected.

Because this is a regulatory interim order rather than a criminal proceeding, the register is one of prima facie findings subject to due process, not guilt. The noticees are entitled to contest the allegations before SEBI and the tribunal.

What It Means

For ordinary investors, the order is a reminder that manipulation can hide inside apparently normal derivatives volumes. The alleged pattern here did not touch index derivatives at all; it clustered in the futures and options of smaller single stocks, where, per the order, a modest amount of capital can move a price. Retail traders in single-stock options can be the counterparties whose orders fill at prices nudged by such activity, which SEBI says can "deceive gullible investors".

The practical takeaway is verification and caution rather than alarm. Registration can be checked in seconds using SEBI's intermediary search and the SEBI Check facility on sebi.gov.in, though this matter shows registration alone does not guarantee conduct. Investors trading illiquid single-stock options should treat sudden, sharp intraday premium swings with care, size positions conservatively, and remember that SEBI's own surveillance and the exchanges' analytics are what surfaced this pattern in the first place. Nothing in the order requires a retail investor to do anything; it is the named entities whose accounts are restrained.

FAQ

Does this order mean SEBI has found the people named guilty?

No. This is an ex-parte interim order recording SEBI's prima facie findings, not a final adjudication. The order itself states the noticees may file objections within 21 days and seek a personal hearing, and that a detailed investigation must be completed without being influenced by these prima facie findings. Nothing has been finally proven, and the order can be challenged before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.

What exactly did SEBI order?

SEBI impounded wrongful gains of Rs 28,12,08,542 jointly and severally from the six noticees, restrained them from accessing the securities markets, directed banks and depositories to freeze debits up to the impounded amount, and required a full inventory of assets within 15 days. Prrsaar's client-facing broker accounts were carved out from the freeze.

Can the order be appealed?

Yes. SEBI orders passed by a Whole Time Member are appealable to the Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 15T of the SEBI Act, and thereafter to the Supreme Court on a question of law. The noticees may also file their reply and objections directly with SEBI within 21 days of receiving the order.

How can I check if my broker or research analyst is registered?

Use SEBI's public intermediary search on sebi.gov.in and the SEBI Check facility, and match the registration number against the entity you are dealing with. Registration confirms authorisation to operate; it does not, on its own, guarantee conduct, as this matter involving a registered broker illustrates.

Where can I read the official order?

The full 127-page ex-parte interim order dated 16 September 2026, bearing reference WTM/KV/ISD/ISD-TPD2/32723/2026-27, is published in the enforcement orders section of sebi.gov.in and is linked in this report.

This report is based on the official SEBI ex-parte interim order dated 16 September 2026 (WTM/KV/ISD/ISD-TPD2/32723/2026-27). It was surfaced via the SEBI enforcement feed.