The High Powered Advisory Committee (HPAC) recommended settlement of the matter upon payment of ₹34.84 lakh by Unistone Capital Pvt Ltd and ₹32.50 lakh by director Jitendra Sanghavi. | Photo Credit: HEMANSHI KAMANI

Merchant banker Unistone Capital and its director Jitendra Sanghavi have settled a case with SEBI over alleged violations of insider trading rules in the shares of Cupid Ltd after paying a combined settlement amount of over ₹67 lakh.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) initiated adjudication proceedings against Unistone and Sanghavi for the alleged violations of Prohibition of Insider Trading (PIT) regulations.

According to SEBI, the applicants (Unistone and Sanghavi) allegedly entered into contra trades in the shares of Cupid Ltd, with the buy and sell legs executed within a period of six months.

They were also accused of carrying out trades in the company's scrip during the investigation period without obtaining the required pre-clearance, the regulator said in an order passed on Tuesday.

Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued against the applicants on June 13, 2025, by the regulator for the alleged violations.

Pending adjudication proceedings, Unistone and Sanghavi filed two separate settlement applications in July 2025, to settle the matter initiated against them "without admitting or denying the facts and conclusions of law".

The High Powered Advisory Committee (HPAC) recommended settlement of the matter upon payment of ₹34.84 lakh by Unistone Capital Pvt Ltd and ₹32.50 lakh by Sanghavi.

The recommendation was subsequently approved by SEBI's panel of Whole Time Members. After noting that the settlement amounts were paid on June 2, 2026, the regulator disposed of the adjudication proceedings through a settlement order.

"... in view of the acceptance of the settlement terms and the receipt of settlement amount, the adjudication proceedings initiated against applicants vide SCN dated June 13, 2025 is disposed of in terms of the Settlement Regulations," SEBI said.

However, the regulator clarified that the order is without prejudice to its right to initiate or restore proceedings, if it later finds that full and true disclosures were not made or if any undertakings or waivers are violated.

Published on June 17, 2026