38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

SAT Stays SEBI Order Banning NDTV Promoters From Securities Market; Next Hearing On Sep 16 [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      19 June, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
SAT Stays SEBI Order Banning NDTV Promoters From Securities Market; Next Hearing On Sep 16 [Read Order]

The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) on June 18, 2019, stayed an order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) barring New Delhi Television Ltd. (NDTV) promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy from holding managerial or directorial positions at the news television network for two years.

Such orders prima facie would not be in the interest of the shareholders of NDTV or investors at this stage, SAT said in an order, adding the company cannot remain headless.

The tribunal directed the Roys to not alienate or create any encumbrance on their shareholding in NDTV till further orders.

The order pertains to Rs 350-crore loan taken by holding company RRPR Holding from ICICI Bank, which was later liquidated by taking two more loans from Vishvapradhan Commercial (VCPL). The loan taken from VCPL was interest-free for 10 years on the condition that VCPL would have a right of first refusal on 50 per cent of NDTV shares in the event they were sold in the market. The loan agreement had certain call options for transfer of 30 per cent of RRPR shareholding at a price of around Rs 215 per share.

SEBI, in its order dated June 14, 2019, said the loan agreement was nothing but a sham agreement, and violated disclosure norms.

Hearing both the parties, the tribunal, however, observed that whether the loan agreement was a sham transaction or not and whether the loan agreement, in fact, wrested control of NDTV to VCPL is a question which is required to be considered in detail.

The tribunal pulled up SEBI for not supplying a copy of the order to the Roys.

We find the whole world knows about the impugned order except the appellants. To date, they have not been supplied a copy of the impugned order despite the oral direction given by this tribunal yesterday (Monday)... Their liability and their onerous duty does not end the moment they upload the order on their website. The first duty is to supply a copy of the impugned order to the aggrieved party, which, in the instant case, has not been done to date, said SAT.

The tribunal, while listing the matter for final disposal on September 16, 2019, directed SEBI to file a reply and gave three weeks to the Roys to file a rejoinder.

[Read Order]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email