Reliance Industries Ltd Cleared of Fraud Charges in RPL Scrip Case by Supreme Court

LAWCOURT
Whalesbook Corporate News Logo
AuthorRiya Kapoor|Published at:
Reliance Industries Ltd Cleared of Fraud Charges in RPL Scrip Case by Supreme Court
Overview

The Supreme Court dismissed fraud charges against Reliance Industries in the RPL scrip trading case, though a penalty for disclosure violations was upheld. This decision resolves a long-standing legal matter dating back to 2017.

Instant Stock Alerts on WhatsApp

Used by 10,000+ active investors

1

Add Stocks

Select the stocks you want to track in real time.

2

Get Alerts on WhatsApp

Receive instant updates directly to WhatsApp.

  • Quarterly Results
  • Concall Announcements
  • New Orders & Big Deals
  • Capex Announcements
  • Bulk Deals
  • And much more

Reliance Industries Ltd Cleared of Fraud in RPL Scrip Trading Case

Supreme Court dismisses fraud charges against Reliance Industries Ltd in the 'RPL scrip' trading matter. A penalty for disclosure violations remains upheld.

Reader Takeaway: Fraud charges dismissed, reducing reputational risk; disclosure violation penalty upheld.

What just happened

The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on May 29, 2026, has dismissed the allegations of 'fraud' against Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) under the PFUTP (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations. This ruling resolves a significant legal proceeding that had been ongoing since 2017.

Why this matters

This judgment significantly reduces the legal and reputational risk for RIL by clearing the severe 'fraud' tag. While a penalty for disclosure violations related to position limits has been upheld, the dismissal of fraud charges provides a crucial reprieve for the company and its investors.

The backstory

Proceedings began in 2017 when SEBI found RIL acted fraudulently in trading the RPL scrip, ordering a disgorgement of ₹447.27 crore and a one-year ban from equity derivatives. RIL appealed, and the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) initially upheld SEBI's findings. In 2020, the Supreme Court directed RIL to deposit ₹250 crore in the Investors’ Protection Fund and stayed recovery of the balance. In 2021, SEBI imposed a ₹25 crore penalty for disclosure violations, which RIL also deposited.

What changes now

The Supreme Court's final verdict clears RIL of the most serious 'fraud' allegation. The company had already deposited ₹250 crore in the Investors’ Protection Fund and ₹25 crore as a penalty for disclosure violations, actions that align with the final outcome where the fraud charges are dismissed but disclosure violation penalties stand.

Risks to watch

While fraud charges are dismissed, the penalty for disclosure violations under SEBI and NSE circulars remains upheld. Investors should monitor any future implications of this upheld penalty.

Peer comparison

Details on peer company involvement in similar regulatory actions are not provided in this filing.

Context metrics (time-bound)

  • Disgorgement amount (original SEBI order): ₹447.27 crore
  • Deposit in Investor Protection Fund (2020): ₹250 crore
  • Penalty imposed (2021): ₹25 crore

What to track next

Investors will be keen to see any further commentary or actions from RIL regarding the upheld penalty for disclosure violations and the long-term impact of this resolved legal matter.

Get stock alerts instantly on WhatsApp

Quarterly results, bulk deals, concall updates and major announcements delivered in real time.

Disclaimer:This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, financial, or trading advice, nor a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. Readers should consult a SEBI-registered advisor before making investment decisions, as markets involve risk and past performance does not guarantee future results. The publisher and authors accept no liability for any losses. Some content may be AI-generated and may contain errors; accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. Views expressed do not reflect the publication’s editorial stance.