SEBI upholds curbs on Rajesh Exports, chairman over ₹15.34 lakh crore revenue discrepancy
Synopsis
SEBI has confirmed sweeping curbs on Rajesh Exports and its chairman after finding that a jaw-dropping gap between ₹15.34 lakh crore in consolidated revenue and just ₹3,027 crore reported by Swiss unit Valcambi SA remained unexplained across five years. A forensic auditor is now on the case — and the company's go-to defence of reporting-period differences has been ruled untenable.
Key Takeaways
SEBI has upheld its interim directions against Rajesh Exports Limited and chairman Rajesh Mehta in a confirmatory order dated 14 October 2026 .
A revenue discrepancy of ₹15.34 lakh crore (consolidated, REL) versus ₹3,027 crore (standalone, Valcambi SA) over FY21–FY25 remains unexplained to SEBI's satisfaction.
Rajesh Mehta continues to be barred from buying, selling, or dealing in Rajesh Exports securities, directly or indirectly.
Significant company transactions were reportedly routed through Mehta's personal bank accounts, raising additional governance concerns.
A newly appointed forensic auditor has been tasked with the investigation, with SEBI directing its expeditious completion.
SEBI rejected the argument that audited accounts, by themselves, resolve concerns raised during the investigation.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has confirmed its interim directions against Rajesh Exports Limited (REL) and its chairman Rajesh Mehta, citing persistent and unresolved concerns over the accuracy, completeness, and verifiability of the company's financial disclosures. The confirmatory order, issued on 14 October 2026, keeps in place all restrictions previously imposed on both the company and its chairman.
The Revenue Gap at the Heart of the Case
The central issue, according to SEBI, is a striking discrepancy between the consolidated revenue reported by Rajesh Exports and the standalone revenue disclosed by its Swiss subsidiary, Valcambi SA, over a five-year period from FY21 to FY25. While Rajesh Exports reported consolidated revenue of ₹15.34 lakh crore during this period, Valcambi SA's standalone revenue stood at just ₹3,027 crore — a gulf that the regulator said defied credible explanation.
The company had argued that differences in reporting periods between Indian and overseas entities accounted for the variation. SEBI rejected this reasoning, stating that even when figures for the entire five-year window were examined collectively, the explanation failed to justify the scale of the mismatch.
What SEBI's Order Found
SEBI Whole-Time Member Kamlesh Chandra Varshney observed that the company had not demonstrated, by reference to underlying records, how reporting-period differences could account for the magnitude of the revenue gap. He held the explanation to be untenable, with concerns over the reliability and verifiability of the consolidated revenue figures continuing to persist.
The regulator noted that Rajesh Exports had submitted additional information following the earlier interim order, but the material provided did not satisfactorily address the deficiencies identified during the investigation. Several records sought by SEBI either remained unavailable, were furnished incompletely, or were submitted in a form that did not permit independent verification.
Confidentiality Claims and Transaction Routing
The company and its chairman cited confidentiality obligations, contractual arrangements, data-protection requirements, and foreign laws as reasons for their inability to produce certain information. SEBI, however, found that the available material did not establish that all reasonable efforts had been made to obtain and furnish the required information through legally permissible means.
Notably, the regulator flagged that significant company transactions had been routed through Mehta's personal bank accounts, and that the noticees had failed to satisfactorily explain the legal authority, approvals, and documentation under which such arrangements were made. Certain third-party entities had also indicated their dealings were conducted with Mehta personally, rather than with Rajesh Exports as a corporate entity.
Trading Restrictions and Compliance Directions
SEBI has continued its bar on Rajesh Mehta from buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in Rajesh Exports securities, directly or indirectly, until further orders. The regulator dismissed the request to lift this restriction, stating that the absence of identified trading activity in the company's shares was not sufficient grounds for revocation, given the broader unresolved concerns.
The regulator also rejected the argument that audited financial statements, by themselves, resolved the concerns raised during the proceedings. As part of the confirmatory order, Rajesh Exports has been directed to ensure true, fair, accurate, and complete disclosures relating to its financial statements, related-party transactions, and other material information. Both the company and its chairman have been instructed to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and the newly appointed forensic auditor. SEBI has directed the investigating authority to complete the probe expeditiously.
Point of View
027 crore revenue gap between a listed parent and its principal subsidiary is not a rounding error — it is a structural question about the integrity of India's listed-company disclosure framework. SEBI's decision to reject both the reporting-period explanation and the audited-accounts defence signals a harder line on consolidated financials, a space regulators have historically found difficult to scrutinise. The routing of company transactions through a chairman's personal bank accounts, if substantiated by the forensic audit, would represent a governance failure of the first order. The real test now is whether the forensic process moves quickly enough to protect minority shareholders, who currently have no clear picture of what the consolidated numbers actually represent.
NationPress
14 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has SEBI upheld curbs on Rajesh Exports and its chairman?
SEBI has maintained its interim restrictions because a large and unexplained discrepancy persists between the ₹15.34 lakh crore consolidated revenue reported by Rajesh Exports and the ₹3,027 crore standalone revenue disclosed by its Swiss subsidiary Valcambi SA over FY21–FY25. The company's explanation — that differences in reporting periods between Indian and overseas entities caused the gap — was found untenable by the regulator.
What restrictions apply to Rajesh Mehta under SEBI's order?
Rajesh Mehta is barred from buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in Rajesh Exports securities, directly or indirectly, until further orders from SEBI. The regulator rejected his request to lift the restriction, stating that the absence of identified trading activity alone was not adequate grounds for revocation given the broader unresolved concerns.
What is the role of the forensic auditor appointed by SEBI?
SEBI has appointed a forensic auditor to independently examine Rajesh Exports' financial records and verify the discrepancies identified during the investigation. Both the company and its chairman have been directed to fully cooperate and provide all required documents. SEBI has instructed that the probe be completed expeditiously.
Why did SEBI flag transactions through Rajesh Mehta's personal bank accounts?
SEBI noted that significant company transactions were routed through Mehta's personal bank accounts rather than through the corporate entity, and that the noticees failed to satisfactorily explain the legal authority, approvals, and documentation under which such arrangements were made. Third-party entities had also confirmed that their dealings were conducted with Mehta personally.
Does having audited financial statements protect Rajesh Exports from SEBI action?
No. SEBI explicitly stated that the fact that the company's financial statements had been audited did not, by itself, resolve the concerns identified during the proceedings. The regulator's investigation focuses on the accuracy and verifiability of underlying records, which go beyond what a standard audit review would cover.
