In short: On 14 October 2026, SEBI confirmed the interim directions it had issued on 3 June 2026 against Rajesh Exports Limited and Rajesh Mehta. The regulator said the noticees had not effectively answered its prima facie concerns about financial misrepresentation and incomplete disclosures. These are findings at an interim stage, not a final verdict.

What has happened?

SEBI has passed a confirmatory order under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. It continues the directions from its earlier ex-parte interim order of 3 June 2026. "Ex-parte" means the order was passed without first hearing the other side. Since then, the noticees filed written replies and were given a personal hearing, and they also submitted additional documents.

SEBI concluded that the company had not satisfactorily rebutted the earlier prima facie findings. The order was limited to one question: whether those findings had been answered, and whether the interim directions should be modified, revoked or confirmed.

What are the curbs?

  • Rajesh Mehta: remains restrained from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in the securities of Rajesh Exports, directly or indirectly, until further orders.
  • Rajesh Exports: must keep making true, fair, accurate and complete disclosures of its financial statements, related-party transactions and other material information under securities laws.

How did the case begin?

SEBI began examining the company after a complaint alleged possible financial misrepresentation in its books. The complaint concerned large trade receivables that had stayed outstanding for over two years. The investigation covered 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2024. BDO India Services Pvt. Ltd. was appointed forensic auditor in December 2024.

Rajesh Exports is listed on the National Stock Exchange of India and BSE. It is a gold refiner and manufacturer of gold products, and it sells in India through wholesale and retail channels, including under the Shubh Jewellers brand. Its group has overseas subsidiaries and step-down subsidiaries, including Global Gold Refineries AG and Valcambi SA in Switzerland.

What concerns did SEBI flag?

  • Non-cooperation: SEBI said documents came in tranches and were incomplete in many respects. It also said the noticees did not cooperate with the forensic auditor, which hampered the investigation.
  • Information gaps: the company had not provided information in a complete and usable form for independent checking. This covered consolidated operations, underlying accounting records and details of foreign subsidiaries.
  • Confidentiality and Swiss law: the company cited confidentiality, data-protection requirements and Swiss law restrictions. SEBI rejected this at this stage. It said private confidentiality arrangements cannot bypass regulatory obligations, and that the material did not show the company had taken all legally permissible steps to provide the information.
  • Consolidated revenue: the company reported substantially higher consolidated revenue by including overseas entities. SEBI said it had not received party-wise break-ups, sales and purchase registers, invoices, purchase orders or similar records to verify the figures.
  • Revenue gap: SEBI noted a large gap between Valcambi SA's standalone revenue and the much higher revenue at the GGR and Rajesh Exports consolidated levels. The company said Valcambi recognises only processing charges as revenue, while GGR recognises the gross value of gold transactions plus processing charges. SEBI said this did not fully reconcile the difference with supporting records.
  • Use of funds: SEBI's findings also refer to the routing of company funds through personal accounts.

What does it mean legally?

The order rests on the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. SEBI also referred to the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, its listing-obligations regulations and its regulations on fraudulent and unfair trade practices. A confirmatory order keeps interim protections in place while the matter proceeds. It does not settle whether any violation has actually occurred.

Who is affected and what should readers do?

Shareholders and prospective investors in Rajesh Exports are the most directly interested. The curb on dealing applies to Rajesh Mehta personally, not to ordinary shareholders. Investors may wish to read the full order on SEBI's website and rely on the company's official exchange filings. Readers should not treat this order as a final finding of wrongdoing.

Frequently asked questions

Does this order stop me from trading Rajesh Exports shares?

The sources describe the dealing restraint as applying to Rajesh Mehta. They do not say it applies to other shareholders.

Is this a final finding of fraud?

No. SEBI said the prima facie findings were not effectively rebutted, and it continued the interim directions. The directions stay until further orders.

Why did SEBI reject the Swiss law explanation?

SEBI said private confidentiality arrangements cannot be used to avoid regulatory duties. It also said the material did not show the company had taken every legally permissible step to provide the information.

Sources

Not legal advice. This page explains the law in general terms. Rules, fees and limits change, and your facts matter. Check the official source or consult a qualified advocate before acting. Disclaimer