Rs 77 crore routed through his personal account for a deposit before the Karnataka High Court is at the centre of the order in which SEBI confirms trading ban on Rajesh Exports chairman Rajesh Mehta. The observations are prima facie and have not been adjudicated.
New Delhi: The curbs on Rajesh Mehta, chairman of Rajesh Exports Limited (REL), will stay in place until further orders, with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) having confirmed its interim restraint on his buying, selling or dealing in the company’s securities. In the same confirmatory order, the regulator recorded that REL “knowingly” hid facts from courts [SEBI v. Rajesh Exports Limited and Another].
The order was passed on October 14, 2026 by SEBI Whole Time Member Kamlesh C Varshney. It records the regulator’s prima facie observations at the confirmatory stage, while the forensic audit and investigation continue. The allegations against the company and its promoter have not been adjudicated.
The directions
The freeze on Mehta continues so as to protect investors and market integrity. REL and its promoter must cooperate with the ongoing forensic audit and make complete disclosures, and the forensic auditor and the investigating authority are to speed up the probe. The company’s response to the confirmatory order was not available at the time of writing, and any challenge before the Securities Appellate Tribunal has not been reported.
The Rs 77 crore and the courts
These are the regulator’s own observations and not proven findings. SEBI recorded that REL admitted routing Rs 77 crore through Mehta’s personal account for a deposit before the Karnataka High Court, so that its identity would not be disclosed to that court. In SEBI’s view this amounted to “knowingly hiding facts from the Hon’ble courts”.
The order notes Mehta’s argument that the aim was to maintain “plausible deniability” about the actual judgment debtor’s liability. SEBI rejected the defence that he acted only as an authorised conduit and described the routing of company funds through a director’s private account as “unauthorized financial accommodation”.
The numbers SEBI could not reconcile
REL reported consolidated revenues above Rs 15 lakh crore for FY 2020-21 to 2024-25, whereas Valcambi reported standalone revenues of Rs 3,027.38 crore, a gap SEBI described as nearly 99 per cent. It also noted an investment of Rs 1,035.27 crore in African gold mines that could not be verified, and Rs 2,914 crore of overdue trade receivables that, it said, were improperly netted off.
REL had refused to supply customer and vendor data, citing Swiss confidentiality law and private non-disclosure agreements. SEBI turned that down: contractual arrangements cannot override its regulatory requirements, it stated, and accepting such a defence would let listed companies evade disclosure.
Where it began: the June 3 interim order
An investigation that followed a shareholder complaint received in March 2024, about large trade receivables outstanding for over two years, led to SEBI’s interim order of June 3, 2026, which restrained REL and its promoter-chairman from the securities market. In that order SEBI alleged a gap of nearly Rs 15.15 lakh crore between the consolidated revenues REL reported for FY 2020-21 to 2024-25 and the revenues it could verify from its subsidiaries, including Switzerland-based Valcambi SA. REL had denied the allegations at that stage, saying the revenues it declared were correct and that the order was only interim.
What the confirmatory order changes
An interim restraint now becomes a continuing one, so the curbs on the promoter will persist while the investigation runs its course. The order also signals that SEBI will not accept foreign confidentiality laws or private contracts as an answer to a request for records needed to verify reported revenues.
The remark on concealment from a court is notable because it carries the regulator’s concern beyond disclosure to the market and into the conduct of litigation. These are SEBI’s observations at an interim-confirmatory stage, and the company and its promoter remain entitled to contest them.
Case Title: SEBI v. Rajesh Exports Limited and Another [confirmatory order; case number not reported]
Bench: Kamlesh C Varshney, Whole Time Member, Securities and Exchange Board of India
Date of Order: October 14, 2026