Paritosh Mehra (name changed) is from Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. He asked a simple question: why he was being asked to pay into a personal account instead of the firm’s own. The answer he got back was that SEBI’s rules required it. That wasn’t true. And once we started pulling the thread, that single false explanation […]
Mohit Bhardwaj (name changed) is from Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. He mentioned SEBI on a call once, just to explain why he was unhappy. What he heard back was the moment everything about this firm became clear. A representative told him, plainly, not to threaten them with the regulator. That single sentence, recorded on the call
At the time Rakesh opened his trading account, he specifically selected a plan carrying a flat brokerage rate of ₹20 per executed order. This was not a vague general understanding. It was a specific plan he had knowingly chosen. On one particular trading day, a total of ₹1,97,106.95 was debited from his account. Of that
Sachin purchased a trading advisory plan for ₹63,900. He used it actively for about ten to twelve days, during which he incurred a loss of close to ₹20,000. Facing a temporary shortage of trading capital, he informed the firm honestly that he would need to pause his participation for a while. Rather than treating this
Yusuf was persistently contacted by a broker’s representative and encouraged to open a trading account, with assurances of guidance and algorithmic trading support built into the pitch. Nowhere in that onboarding conversation was he told about the flat brokerage rate that would apply to every single lot he traded, a fixed charge of fifty rupees
Ananya Deshpande (name changed) is from Kolhapur, Maharashtra. She had never traded before this firm contacted her, and she asked, more than once, for a stop-loss to be placed on her positions. She was told plainly not to place one. Within days, that single refusal cost her ₹3,16,000 in a single day. Here’s exactly how
This is not an anonymized story. Every name in it, the applicant, the broker, the employee, and the arbitrator, comes directly from a signed, publicly available arbitration award. We are telling it in full because Ramesh’s case is now a matter of public record, and because the reasoning behind this award is genuinely useful for
Sanjeev’s relationship with a firm registered as a SEBI Investment Adviser began with a straightforward pitch, subscribe to their advisory service and earn substantial profits. He paid ₹6,000 for a basic package, trusting the firm’s registration. That first package produced a loss of ₹10,000. Rather than pausing, Sanjeev was persuaded to upgrade to a second
Sunil was approached by a firm registered with SEBI as a Research Analyst, whose team promised high returns and what was described to him directly as sure shot recommendations. A promise framed this confidently leaves little room for the ordinary uncertainty that comes with any genuine market advice. Over the course of the engagement, Sunil
Rahul had already disclosed two things to the representative who contacted him, that his trading capital was borrowed money, and that he had already lost over five lakh rupees in options trading over the previous few years. The response was not caution. It was an assurance that everything would be recovered within one to two
Nafeesa was contacted by a representative claiming to be a SEBI-registered research analyst, offering advisory services with an assurance of guaranteed high returns. Her very first trade under his guidance produced a profit of ₹6,000. That early, genuine result did more work than any sales pitch could have. It converted a stranger’s promise of guaranteed
A representative of a firm registered with SEBI as a Research Analyst approached Manav, offering advisory services for Nifty trades. The terms were stated plainly from the start: a thirty percent cut of any profit made on his trades. His first trade under this arrangement showed a small profit, and he paid ₹2,000 as the
