38.6c New Delhi, India, Wednesday, February 18, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

SEBI Bars Prannoy And Radhika Roy From Securities Market For Two Years For Fraud Against NDTV [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      15 June, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
SEBI Bars Prannoy And Radhika Roy From Securities Market For Two Years For Fraud Against NDTV [Read Order]

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on June 14, 2019, has barred the promoters of New Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV) - RRPR Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy - from accessing securities market for two years.

The market regulator has also restrained them from holding position as director or any key managerial personnel in NDTV for two years.

The order was passed by SEBI whole time member S.K. Mohanty in a 2017 case filed by Quantum Securities Ltd, an NDTV shareholder, alleging that RRPR Holdings, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy didn't disclose material information to the shareholders about loan agreements entered into by them with Vishvapradhan Commercial Private Limited (VCPL) and ICICI.

The SEBI found that the Roys "bartered away the interests of NDTV by making them subject to prior written consent of ICICI/VCPL without disclosing the same to the company (NDTV)."

As per SEBI, "the loan agreements were unmistakably structured as a scheme to defraud the investors by camouflaging the information about the adversarial terms and conditions impinging upon the interest of NDTV's shareholders, thereby inducing innocent investors to continue to trade in the shares of NDTV oblivious to such adversarial developments in the shareholding of NDTV."

In their defence, Roys argued that the agreements were for taking private loans in exercise of their shareholding rights and that since shareholders rights are personal property, the agreements did not affect NDTV or its operations in any manner. Moreover, the loan agreements were private agreements in which NDTV was not a party, and hence, there was no requirement for the Noticees to make disclosure of the same to the stock exchanges.

However, SEBI rejected their arguments on finding that they had agreed "to transfer a substantial controlling stake in NDTV to the VCPL behind the back of the shareholders of NDTV."

It ruled that the loan agreements were used to deceitfully transfers shares of NDTV upto 30 percent to VCPL without the knowledge of Board or its shareholders, amounting to unfair trade practice and was in stark violation of Section 12A of SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), 3(b) and 4(1) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Markets) Regulations.

Further, SEBI also found that since Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy were running the day to day affairs of the company as its Chairman and Managing Director respectively, they had "this avowed duty to act in a fair and transparent manner to protect the interest of their minority shareholders and not to indulge in any fraudulent activity or any activity detrimental to the interest of the shareholders.

"From a read-through of the ICICI Loan Agreement, one would get a clear impression that the prime consideration for ICICI to extend the loan to the Noticee no. 1 (RRPR) was on the strength of the fact that the Noticees are the promoters and majority shareholders of NDTV. Through this agreement, ICICI has sought to secure the repayment of the loan amount by imposing certain conditions on the Noticees. However, it cannot be denied that these conditions materially and significantly impacted the business interest of NDTV, a listed company, although NDTV was not a party to the said loan agreement. It is true that the said agreement was a loan agreement between the parties and the conditions stipulated therein were contingent only on default in repayment of the loan amount. Yet, it is also a fact that at the time of availing of the loan from ICICI, the Noticees, who had controlling interest in NDTV, undertook and gave guarantee to comply with the said conditions imposed on them by ICICI, which had significant implications on the interest of NDTV and was therefore, a material and price sensitive information. Had these information been disclosed to the public, they would have undoubtedly influenced the investment decisions of the shareholders and prospective investors of NDTV, observed SEBI in respect to agreements with ICICI.

On the other hand, as regards to VCPL loan transaction, the SEBI observed that "the VCPL Loan Agreements were very material and price sensitive information as they effectively involved passing of controlling stake of 30% share capital of NDTV and stipulated various conditions binding the promoters of NDTV (i.e. the three Noticees) with respect to their dealing in the shares of NDTV, capital restructuring of NDTV etc. The minority shareholder of NDTV and general investors of securities market were entitled to know such crucial transactions carried out by the promoters which involved transferring the rights over a substantial stake by the promoters to a third party. However, Noticees apparently did not want the general investors to know about the transfer of their 30% shares of NDTV and other associated rights to VCPL. These transactions were deliberately structured by the Noticees as loan transactions so as to conceal the said sale of 30% stake in NDTV. Accordingly, the transaction was devised in a way to avoid the said information getting known to the investors, and to ensure that investors continue to trade in the shares of NDTV unaware of these material and price sensitive developments. Further, as mentioned earlier inter se transaction of shares of NDTV between the Noticees were taking place in off market in furtherance of the VCPL Loan Agreements, behind the back of the shareholders of NDTV."

[Read Order]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

nobody-should-believe-anybody-before-marriage-sc-cautions-against-pre-marital-physical-relationships
Trending Judiciary
“Nobody Should Believe Anybody Before Marriage”: SC Cautions Against Pre-Marital Physical Relationships

Supreme Court cautions young adults on pre-marital relationships in a bail plea over rape on false promise of marriage; suggests mediation.

17 February, 2026 04:47 PM
allahabad-hc-refers-advocate-for-criminal-contempt-after-alleged-scandalous-remarks-during-bail-hearing
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Refers Advocate for Criminal Contempt After Alleged Scandalous Remarks During Bail Hearing [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court refers advocate for criminal contempt over alleged scandalous remarks during a bail hearing in Uttar Pradesh.

17 February, 2026 05:15 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-notifies-2026-guidelines-for-senior-advocate-designation-scraps-point-system-and-interviews
Trending Judiciary
SC Notifies 2026 Guidelines for Senior Advocate Designation; Scraps Point System and Interviews [Read Notification]

Supreme Court notifies 2026 guidelines for Senior Advocate designation, abolishing point system and interviews; introduces holistic evaluation process.

12 February, 2026 04:00 PM
sunjay-kapur-will-dispute-priya-sachdev-files-application-to-dismiss-mil-rani-kapurs-family-trust-fraud-allegations
Trending Judiciary
Sunjay Kapur Will Dispute: Priya Sachdev Files Application To Dismiss MIL Rani Kapur’s Family Trust Fraud Allegations

Delhi HC issues notice on Priya Kapur’s plea to dismiss Rani Kapur’s suit alleging a fraudulent family trust to divert late Sunjay Kapur’s estate.

12 February, 2026 04:32 PM
girlfriend-cannot-be-deemed-relative-of-husband-telangana-hc
Trending Judiciary
Girlfriend Cannot Be Deemed ‘Relative’ of Husband: Telangana HC [Read Order]

Telangana High Court quashes case against girlfriend, holds she is not a “relative” under Section 498A IPC and cannot be charged with stalking under Section 354D.

12 February, 2026 04:46 PM
allahabad-hc-stays-section-174-a-ipc-proceedings-against-mla-abbas-ansari
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Stays Section 174-A IPC Proceedings Against MLA Abbas Ansari [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court stayed proceedings against MLA Abbas Ansari under Section 174-A IPC over alleged non-compliance with proclamation proceedings.

12 February, 2026 05:08 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email