Quick Summary
SEBI’s Quasi Judicial Authority, Biju S., passed a final order on October 30, 2026 against Ms. Veena Sharma, proprietor of Research Guru. It found staff without required qualifications, missing client records, fees credited to another person’s bank account and website claims about qualified analysts. No new fine was imposed, as a ₹12 lakh penalty came earlier on January 22, 2026. SEBI cancelled her registration certificate and told her to ensure refund of pending dues.
A surprise SEBI inspection, a missing hard disk, and a final order four years later. That is how the Research Guru story ended.
On October 30, 2026, SEBI cancelled the registration certificate of Ms. Veena Sharma, who ran Research Guru as a proprietor.
This Veena Sharma SEBI order also tells her to ensure the refund of any pending dues to investors.
What Does The Veena Sharma SEBI Order Say?
SEBI’s final order of October 30, 2026 directs cancellation of the registration certificate of Ms. Veena Sharma, proprietor of Research Guru.
It also directs her to ensure refund of any pending dues to investors.
The key details of the order are set out below:
1. The Order And The Authority
It is a Final Order under Section 12(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with Regulation 27 of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008. The order number is QJA/BS/MIRSD/MIRSD-SEC-5/32816/2026-27.
Biju S., Quasi-Judicial Authority, passed it in Mumbai on October 30, 2026.
2. The Noticee
The noticee is Ms. Veena Sharma, Proprietor of Research Guru.
The order is titled “in the matter of inspection of Ms. Veena Sharma, Proprietor, Research Guru”.
3. The Direction
SEBI directed the cancellation of her registration certificate.
The order comes into force with immediate effect.
4. What It Did Not Add
The order adds no new monetary penalty.
An earlier adjudication order had already imposed ₹12 lakh, and we cover that below.
From A Surprise Inspection To A Final Order: How The Case Moved?
The matter ran on two tracks after the inspection.
An adjudication ended in a ₹12 lakh penalty, and an enquiry led to this final order.
The dates recorded in the order are listed below:
1. The Inspection: July 14 to July 18, 2022
SEBI carried out a surprise on-site inspection of Research Guru. It covered the period from April 1, 2021 onwards.
2. The Pre-Enquiry Show Cause Notice: June 25, 2024
A Designated Authority issued the notice under Regulation 25(1) of the Intermediaries Regulations. Ms. Sharma replied on August 15 and November 26, 2024.
3. The Hearing Before the Designated Authority: December 27, 2024
Her authorised representative attended the hearing.
The Designated Authority then submitted an Enquiry Report on January 23, 2026.
4. The Adjudication Penalty: January 22, 2026
The order records an adjudication order of this date that imposed ₹12 lakh for the same set of allegations. Ms. Sharma’s side says the penalty was paid.
Other advisers have faced adjudication penalties too, such as the ₹7 lakh, ₹10 lakh and ₹40 lakh orders covered in SEBI action against IA.
5. The Final Show Cause Notice: February 18, 2026
SEBI issued a show cause notice along with the Enquiry Report.
She replied by email on March 25, 2026.
6. The Final Hearing And Order
The personal hearing took place on May 19, 2026, with further submissions on May 22, 2026.
The final order followed on October 30, 2026.
What Did SEBI Find Against Research Guru?
The Designated Authority listed eight allegations in its report. The officer found that some overlapped and merged them into four issues.
Those issues are staff qualifications, records and risk assessment, fees credited to another account, and misleading claims. Each one is covered below with the officer’s finding.
Did Research Guru’s Staff Meet The Qualification And Certification Norms?
This was the first question, and the officer found it uncontested. Ms. Sharma had admitted the gap herself.
1. What The Designated Authority Noted
The Sales department had 79 staff members. The Designated Authority treated client-facing staff as persons associated with investment advice.
In an undertaking during the inspection, the noticee said around 100 employees were present and that none were NISM certified.
Some also lacked the educational qualification the regulations require.
2. What Ms. Sharma Said
She said her employees only handled onboarding, and that advice and risk profiling were done by her alone.
She said she had the necessary NISM certifications herself.
She also said she realised the position after a clarification during the inspection.
3. What The Officer Held
The officer noted that she admitted the gap before the Designated Authority and in her written submissions.
She gave no details of how many staff she had or what their qualifications were.
He found a violation of Regulation 7 of the IA Regulations.
Did Research Guru Keep Records And Assess Client Risk?
This question carried the most pages. The officer started from a simple point about missing records.
He wrote that without records being shown to SEBI, an adverse presumption would have to be drawn.
1. What The Designated Authority Observed
Research Guru had issued no joining or appointment letters, and salaries of most employees were paid in cash. Provident Fund receipts covered only 13 employees, against about 100 at the premises.
Employees used their own mobile phones to call clients, which made call records impossible to maintain.
SEBI asked for risk profiling, suitability, and client data, and the firm did not furnish it.
2. The Missing Hard Disk
The Designated Authority noted an undertaking signed during the inspection. It said the hard disk with client records had been taken away by some employees.
Ms. Sharma’s reply said instead that data was lost while the inspecting team was present and she was away.
She also said all salaries were paid electronically and that all records were duly maintained.
3. What The Officer Held
The officer said she gave no reason for how the data was lost, and made no claim of trying to retrieve it. She had not mentioned any physical copies of records.
She had attached risk forms and agreements of only 3 persons, said to come from her auditor, and these were not produced before the officer. He also noted that what was submitted to BASL in October 2022 was unclear.
He found a violation of Regulations 13, 16, 17 and 19(1) and (2) of the IA Regulations, and clause 2(vi) of the SEBI circular dated September 23, 2020.
Were Fees Credited To Someone Else’s Bank Account?
SEBI’s circular of December 27, 2019 says advisory fees must come only through banking channels into the adviser’s own account.
This issue was tested on evidence.
1. The Evidence
The Designated Authority’s annexure included bank statements of an employee’s account showing credits of client fees.
Ms. Sharma said the allegation rested only on a statement given under coercion.
2. What The Officer Held
The officer disagreed. The bank statements were separate evidence, and she did not clarify those credits.
He held that even a single demonstrable instance is a clear violation, and found a breach of clause 1(iii) of the circular.
Did The Website Claims Mislead Investors?
The last question joined two allegations. One was about staff qualifications and the other about how Research Guru was run.
The officer treated them separately, and his findings differ on each.
1. What The Archived Website Said
It described Research Guru as having highly qualified analysts who could predict share market movements on time and with high accuracy.
It also said a highly experienced research team gave it high customer retention.
2. The Franchise Allegation
The Designated Authority relied on an undertaking that said franchise owners ran the advisory work on a 70:30 revenue split. It also said Mr. Abhishek Sharma controlled operations.
The officer noted that the undertaking was not backed by other evidence, such as franchise agreements or bank transactions.
He added that because the allegation led to a charge of fraud, the evidence must be strong.
3. The Finding On Misleading Claims
The officer still held that the website claims were “patently false”, because staff did not meet the qualification norms. He wrote that such claims had the obvious effect of inducing investors.
He found a violation of the PFUTP Regulations and Section 12A of the SEBI Act, along with the IA Regulations’ code of conduct and the Intermediaries Regulations.
Also Read: Rajiv Kumar Singh SEBI Order On Adviser Inspection Lapses
What Did Veena Sharma Argue Before SEBI?
Ms. Sharma replied in writing and through an authorised representative. The order sets out her case in detail.
Here are her main points:
1. The ₹12 Lakh Penalty Was Not An Admission
She said the penalty was paid, but it only shows that there may have been minor lapses.
She argued the non-compliances were not severe enough for cancellation.
2. The Inspection And Statements
She said the inspection was without prior intimation and she was not at the office.
She said statements were obtained under coercion and that employees were not made available for cross-examination.
3. No Evidence On Franchises And Control
She said there was no material to show her nephew controlled operations.
She also said no franchise agreement was on record.
4. No Client Complaints
She said that since the inspection, no client complaint had been filed on SCORES or the ODR platform.
5. The Business Had Stopped
Her representative said she stopped the advisory business after the inspection.
She planned to seek conversion from an individual to a corporate licence.
6. Penalty Already Paid
She said she had already faced regulatory action and undertook to improve her work.
Why Did SEBI Choose Cancellation?
After the four findings, the officer turned to the question of action. He agreed with the Designated Authority’s recommendation to cancel.
Several observations in the order explain his reasoning:
1. The Same Allegations
The adjudication order of January 22, 2026 imposed ₹12 lakh for the same set of allegations.
In her own reply, Ms. Sharma again admitted there may have been “minor lapses” without saying which.
2. The Tone Of The Replies
The officer wrote that her replies were ambiguous and her conduct appeared “intentionally imprecise”, raising serious questions about its integrity.
3. The Role Of An Adviser
He wrote that an adviser plays an important role in building investor confidence.
In his words, advisers that miss basic norms on staff qualification, risk assessment and record keeping are “dangerous to the ecosystem”.
4. No Complaints Did Not Help
The officer held that the claim of no investor complaints does not weaken the concern.
Also Read: SEBI Cancels 13 IA Licences Over Unpaid Renewal Fees
Is Veena Sharma’s Research Guru SEBI Registered Or Not?
Readers often ask this first. The order answers it clearly.
Ms. Veena Sharma held SEBI registration number INA000005507, in the Investment Adviser category.
The header of the order names her as an Investment Adviser and a proprietor of Research Guru.
1. What The Order Does To The Registration
SEBI directed cancellation of the registration certificate, and the order takes effect immediately.
A copy goes to BSE Limited, which the order calls the Investment Advisers Administration and Supervisory Body.
2. What The Order Says About Her Business
The officer noted that she had not been carrying on business as an adviser for the past 4 years.
Her own submissions say she closed operations after the July 2022 inspection.
3. How To Check Any Adviser Yourself
You can run the same check on any adviser, and the steps to verify a SEBI registered investment advisor are laid out step by step for SEBI’s portal.
What Does The Order Say About Refunds To Investors?
The cancellation does not close the matter for investors, at least on paper. The officer added one more direction.
1. The Direction
Despite the cancellation, Ms. Sharma shall ensure the refund of any other pending dues to investors.
2. What The Order Does Not Say
The order gives no refund amount and no list of investors. It does not say how many clients paid fees or how much was collected.
It also records no investor loss figure. The officer’s reasoning rests on compliance failures, not on proven client losses.
What Can Investors Learn From The Research Guru Findings?
The order is about compliance, but it works as a checklist for anyone paying an adviser.
Each point below maps to a finding:
1. Check The Registration Number
Look up the adviser on SEBI’s portal before paying. The number should start with INA for an Investment Adviser.
2. Ask Who Will Actually Advise You
The order dealt with client-facing staff who lacked qualifications. Ask about the qualifications of the person speaking to you.
3. Pay Only Into The Adviser’s Own Account
The circular says fees must come through banking channels into the adviser’s own account. A different name on the payment details is a reason to stop and ask.
4. Ask For Your Risk Profile And Agreement
An adviser must assess your risk profile and keep records. Ask for your signed agreement and profile.
5. Keep Your Own Records
Save receipts, messages, and call details.
If you have a problem with a firm, knowing how to complain with SEBI helps you act with the right papers.
Conclusion
SEBI cancelled the registration of Research Guru’s proprietor after four findings on staff qualifications, records, fee credits and website claims. It also told her to ensure refund of any pending dues.
The order is notable for what it leaves out. It adds no new fine, gives no refund figure, and treats the franchise claim as unproven.
For investors, the lesson is simple. Check who is advising you, where your fees go, and what records exist.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
SEBI's final order of October 30, 2026 cancelled the registration of Ms. Veena Sharma, proprietor of Research Guru. It followed an inspection in July 2022. No new penalty was imposed. An earlier adjudication order dated January 22, 2026 imposed ₹12 lakh for the same allegations. Biju S., Quasi Judicial Authority of SEBI, passed it in Mumbai on October 30, 2026. It takes effect immediately. No. It only says she shall ensure refund of any other pending dues to investors. Her side submitted that no complaint was filed on SCORES or ODR since the inspection. The officer held that this does not weaken the concern. The officer found staff without required qualifications, inadequate records, fees credited to another account and misleading website claims. He also cited her imprecise replies.Frequently Asked Questions
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
