Ga Affidavit Of Ownership: Fill & Download for Free

Yup! And the SCOTUS agrees.Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Dozens of decisions have supported this finding since.The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia (2008) said Nunn, "... perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose of fundamental rights.” In Heller, the Supreme Court clearly declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to self-defense and gun ownership. "Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly." Supreme Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban; What Next?Manifestly, no other constitutional right has been manhandled like the Second Amendment. Consider this hypothetical and highly imaginary situation for perspective: Americans who want to exercise their 15th Amendment right to vote find out that they mustprovide two affidavits of reference of good charactercomplete a weekend voting responsibility classobtain an up-to-date voting license to receive a ballotshow two different forms of identification when arriving at the pollsundergo a background check before every votewait ten days after filling out the ballot to turn it in.If their family believes them unfit to vote, they can disenfranchise them with a phone call.If diagnosed with a mood disorder, they can never vote again.If they want their voting rights back they must get a lawyer, sue in court and pay the cost of litigation.Such an outrage would, of course, trigger an American Civil Liberties Union apocalypse, but each of these conditions has been applied to gun owners asserting their Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.

Allegation of corruption and criminal conspiracy.On 20 January 1998 Central Bureau of Investigation filed cases against New Delhi Television #NDTV managing director #PrannoyRoy, former director general of Doordarshan R. Basu and five other top officials of Doordarshan under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal conspiracy and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the #CBI charge-sheet, Doordarshan suffered a loss of over Rs 35.2 million due to the "undue favours" shown to NDTV as its programme The World This Week (TWTW) was put in 'A' category instead of 'special A' category.#Radiatapes controversy.In November 2010, OPEN magazine carried a story which reported transcripts of some of the telephone conversations of #NiraRadia with senior journalists, politicians, and corporate houses, many of whom have denied the allegations. The Central Bureau of Investigation has announced that they have 5,851 recordings of phone conversations by Radia, some of which outline Radia's attempts to broker deals in relation to the 2G spectrum sale. The tapes appear to demonstrate how Radia attempted to use some media persons including #NDTV's #BarkhaDutt to influence the decision to appoint A. Raja as telecom minister. She always denied her role in this episode with stating her role as simply error of judgment. #BarkhaDutt is being investigated by the #CBI.Allegation of tax fraud.#NDTV, through its foreign subsidiaries, is alleged to have violated Indian tax and corporate laws. NDTV has denied these allegations.The Sunday Guardian ran a story which exposed the NDTV's financial misdemeanours and malpractices in connivance with ICICI Bank. "NDTV-ICICI loan chicanery saved Roys" provides details of how NDTV's major stake holders raised funds by misdeclaration of the value of shares in NDTV. NDTV has denied the allegations and the NDTV CEO replied to the Sunday Guardian along with the threat of "criminal defamation".On 19 November 2015 the #ED served ₹2,030 crore (US$300 million) notice to #NDTV for alleged violations under the #FEMA act, however the company said it has been advised that the allegations are not "legally tenable".#CommonwealthGames Contract.On 5 August 2011 Comptroller and Auditor General of India's report on XIX Commonwealth Games was tabled in Parliament of India. In section 14.4.2 of the report, CAG alleged that while awarding contracts worth Rs 37.8 million for production & broadcasting of commercials for promoting CWG-2010 to NDTV & CNN-IBN, the Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee followed an arbitrary approach. Proposals were considered in an ad hoc manner, as and when a proposal was received; no form of competitive tendering was adopted. The #CAG further said in its report that, "We had no assurance about the competitiveness of the rates quoted by these channels and the need and usefulness of these proposals. From March 2010 to June 2010, the entire pre games publicity and sponsorship publicity was done only on #NDTV & CNN-IBN.Suit against #TAMIndia.This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.News broadcaster company sued television audience measurement company, #TAMIndia and its global parent firms for over a billion dollars in the Supreme Court of New York, alleging TAM of manipulating ratings in return for bribes to its officials.YOU HAVE TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT PERSON to celebrate a business milestone at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. But considering that Radhika and #PrannoyRoy launched their 24-hour news channel, more than 15 years ago, at the prime minister’s official residence, it seemed apt that, in 2013, the programme to mark the twenty-fifth year of its parent company, New Delhi Television Private Limited, was held at the president’s.The Roys organised a glittering event on a December evening that year, attended by some of India’s most famous and powerful people, many of whom the network was felicitating as the country’s “greatest global living legends.” In attendance were titans of industry (Mukesh Ambani, Ratan Tata, Indra Nooyi, NR Narayana Murthy), sporting legends (Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, Leander Paes) and film stars (Amitabh Bachchan, Rajinikanth, Waheeda Rahman, Shah Rukh Khan). Once this galaxy of guests was seated, #PrannoyRoy, dressed in a sleek black bandhgala, stepped up to a lectern.“Couple of days ago, I asked Radhika, the founder of #NDTV, what’s kept NDTV going for 25 years,” Prannoy began in his relaxed drawl, a slight smile flickering across his face. Though he is probably the channel’s most recognisable personality, he regularly makes it a point to remind people that the company was founded by his wife, and that he joined her after. “She just said one word: trust,” Prannoy continued. “Your trust. And I am here tonight on behalf of everybody at #NDTV to thank every single one of you for your trust in us.”Two years later, on the evening of 8 November this year, Prannoy called on the audience’s trust again, seated behind his anchor’s desk at NDTV’s studio in south Delhi. This time, he was distinctly less at ease. “Let me start with an explanation and an apology,” he said.His channel had made two mistakes. First, its exit poll had forecast a victory for the Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition in the Bihar legislative elections, which went on to be won by the Rashtriya Janata Dal-Janata Dal (United)-Congress combine. “There are statistical errors that shouldn’t make them be taken too seriously,” Prannoy said, jabbing the air awkwardly as he spoke, his words tripping over each other. “You get it right, you get it wrong sometimes. That’s the life of a pollster.” This was true. Though exit polls are ostensibly more accurate than pre-election surveys, they can, nevertheless, be skewed for a number of reasons, including sampling errors and dishonest responses from voters.The second error was far more grave. At around half past nine that morning, as the counting of votes had just begun, Prannoy declared that the BJP-led coalition had already won, with a majority tally of more than 140 seats. He then proceeded to moderate a discussion with his panellists, analysing the reasons for this supposedly decisive victory. An hour later, it became clear that he was utterly wrong. The misstep was particularly embarrassing given that Prannoy’s first forays into journalism, in the 1980s, had been as an election analyst; Dorab Sopariwala, a colleague from those days, was one of his guests on the show. Prannoy and his panellists had the unenviable task of reversing all the explanations they had conjured up.On air that evening, Prannoy attempted to explain why things had gone so wrong. “On every counting day, all news channels get data from one agency,” he said. “Again, a very globally respected agency. This morning, the first data that came in to all the news channels was completely wrong.”Although this sounded reasonable, it was, in fact, misleading. The agency in question, Nielsen, subsequently disputed Prannoy’s claim. Numbers may have initially shown a lead for the BJP, but, as an elections expert, Prannoy had to know well that a trend can shift, especially early in the counting process. Other channels, such as CNN-IBN, and even the usually overzealous Times Now, had been more cautious before declaring a winner. Prannoy later won plaudits on social media for his apology, but he had not even acknowledged his blunder.“For NDTV, and for me,” Prannoy said, rounding off his remarks, “our aim is to try to bring you the most objective and accurate news as quickly as possible. So thank you for trusting us, and staying with us.”Prannoy wasn’t exaggerating NDTV’s reputation as a reliable broadcaster. Launched in the 1980s, it was India’s first independent news network, entering the field at a time when the government-run Doordarshan had a monopoly over television content. Beginning with one show on that channel, #NDTV expanded the range of Indian television news, introducing international standards in reportage and presentation. In the process, it gained an early lead in viewership ratings, and dominated the advertising market. NDTV passed on its success to shareholders after the company went public in 2004. As the company grew over the years, from producing one show to launching multiple channels, the Roys groomed a set of reporters and anchors who are today among the country’s most acclaimed and best known television journalists.But even as it adhered by and large to its core editorial principles—rigorous reportage, measured presentation, the absence of overt bias—threats to NDTV’s editorial dominance soon emerged from within its own ranks. Rival channels, some of them led by former staffers, began to overtake the network in the race for ratings, and hoovered up precious advertising revenue.While the network fought a losing battle to retain primacy, it plunged into acute financial distress. In 2008, as the media industry reeled from the global recession, NDTV found itself haemorrhaging money. Towards the end of the decade, the network fired hundreds of staffers in an effort to cut costs.In January this year, a stockbroker named Sanjay Dutt filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against the enforcement directorate, or the ED, and the directorate general of income tax investigation. Both are law enforcement agencies: the former is responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes related to foreign funds and money laundering, and the latter deals with violations of tax laws.Dutt, the director of a financial-services firm named #QuantumSecurities, owned around 125,000 shares in #NDTV, representing a 0.2 percent stake. In 2013, he had filed complaints with these agencies, and other government bodies, alleging that NDTV and its promoters had violated a number of laws. In this year’s writ petition—a request for intervention from a court—he alleged that both agencies failed to act on his complaints.Along with the government bodies, Radhika and Prannoy Roy are also named as respondents in Dutt’s petition. So is Radhika Roy #PrannoyRoy Holdings Private Limited, or #RRPR, an entity that the Roys set up in 2005, and in which they placed shares of the company beginning in mid 2008. This company proved to be central to a convoluted maze of transactions that the Roys carried out from 2008 onward.The affidavits that the two agencies filed in response to Dutt’s petition make for remarkable reading. Both told the court that investigations into NDTV and its promoters have been underway since 2011, in response to a complaint by the BJP parliamentarian Yashwant Sinha. The documents reveal that the Roys are being probed for contraventions of tax laws and laws involving foreign money.#NDTV has not been charged for any of the violations identified in the documents. Nevertheless, these investigations raise the question of whether, despite its reputation as a reliable company, NDTV’s financial core may be rotting.WHEN PRANNOY ROY WAS A YOUNG BOY, his grandfather bestowed on him the nickname “Tempest.” It seems a curious choice of moniker in hindsight, given Prannoy’s famously unflappable anchoring style.That self-assured manner was well in evidence when Prannoy appeared on Indian television screens in 1988 to introduce viewers to a new show, produced by the company he and #RadhikaRoy had set up that same year. “We hope in this show to bring you an analysis of the main world news events of the week,” Prannoy began. “A glimpse of the personalities involved, and, of course, the best of sports.” He wore a grey suit and a shiny tie, and sat in front of a wall of television screens. This was the future of Indian television news.The news magazine programme, called The World This Week, had been commissioned by the director general of Doordarshan, Bhaskar Ghose. The journalist Nalin Mehta wrote in his 2008 book India on Television that Ghose had been handpicked by the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi “to turn things around for an Indian television glasnost”—by infusing the public broadcaster with fresh talent and ideas. Ghose signed up the Roys, paying them Rs 2 lakh per episode.The Roys, both from Kolkata, met as school students in Dehradun in the 1960s—she at Welham Girls, he at the Doon School. They moved to London to study further, married, and then settled in Delhi to make their careers. Radhika worked on the desk for the Indian Express and India Today. Prannoy, meanwhile, obtained a doctorate in economics, taught at the Delhi School of Economics, and then turned to election analysis, along with his fellow economist Ashok Lahiri, and the market researchers KMS Ahluwalia and Dorab Sopariwala.After taking up Ghose’s offer, the Roys plunged into the media business, albeit with a limited sense of what the future held. The government was still wary of allowing private players in domestic news broadcasting, so only allowed The World This Week to cover international events. “They were terribly clear that you couldn’t do anything in India, or anything close to it,” Mehta quoted Prannoy as saying.Despite this restriction, the show was a “phenomenal success,” Mehta wrote. Until then, he pointed out, viewers had only seen Doordarshan bulletins, which “consisted solely of stiff news readers reading out the news in highly bureaucratised English or Hindi. When pictures were used it was only for a few seconds, and often even these were still pictures.” The Roys “exposed Indian audiences for the first time to international news television practices,” with Prannoy “introducing each story in an easy conversational style, followed by a pre-packaged story using the best pictures with a voice-over to match the visuals.”In December 1989, the year after the company was founded, Prannoy presented an election results show, a precursor to the kind of wall-to-wall coverage that is the norm today. In it, he tracked the defeat of the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi by the National Front coalition, led by the Janata Dal’s VP Singh. Until then, results had been limited to official announcements through the news. This was different—it conveyed the very mood of the nation to viewers.That year also marked a shift in the Roys’ agreement with #Doordarshan. Instead of the channel paying #NDTV for each show it produced, the company became a producer in its own right, paying Doordarshan a fee and selling advertising directly. This boosted the Roys’ profile: from being hired talent, they became media entrepreneurs.But it also led to the Roys’ first run-in with the law. In 1997, a parliamentary committee examined Doordarshan’s finances and found “irregularities” in its dealings with #NDTV—specifically, with regard to the access the company was given to the channel’s technology, and the advertising rates it had been allowed to charge. In 1998, the Central Bureau of Investigation, #CBI filed a first information report against Prannoy and officials of #Doordarshan, including #RathikantBasu, who was the channel’s director general from 1993 to 1996. In 2013, however, the #CBI filed a closure report in a court, which accepted it and quashed all charges in the case.#NDTV produced The World This Week until 1995, when another opportunity presented itself. The government had launched a new channel, which was to carry a mix of programming including feature films and documentaries. NDTV was signed on to produce a daily news bulletin called News Tonight. The Roys broadcast their first show live, but Prannoy recounted in a speech earlier this year that “someone in the PM’s office heard the word ‘live’ and reacted to it like a four-letter word.” Orders flew between government offices, he said, to “stop this private news from being live.” Subsequently, NDTV began recording the show ten minutes ahead of the scheduled broadcast.When India’s media market opened up in the 1990s, NDTV found a foreign investor, signing up with Rupert Murdoch’s #Starnetwork to produce programmes for the channel #StarPlus. Two years later, NDTV and Star signed a five-year deal to launch and run the 24-hour news channel #StarNews. It was inaugurated in February 1998, just ahead of a general election, by Inder Kumar Gujral, then the prime minister of India. An India Today report from that year noted that “a beaming Gujral threw open the doors of 7 Race Course Road,” his official residence, for the event.Indian regulations, even today, dictate that a foreign company can only be a minority partner in a news channel in India. This gave NDTV, then the country’s most prominent private news entity, a powerful bargaining chip with Star, which was then headed in India by Rathikant Basu. In a 2002 piece, the journalist Sucheta Dalal described the Roys’ arrangement with the network as a “sweetheart deal,” in which NDTV was paid “a whopping $20 million a year,” and retained “total control over editorial content and copyright over programming even though Star pays a big chunk of the cost.”This was #NDTV’s heyday. Star’s money gave the Roys an advantage over other channels, such as Aaj Tak and Zee. It allowed them to buy better equipment, produce slicker graphics, and, most importantly, hire the best talent. The Roys’ team by now included many of the journalists who would go on to form the core of #NDTV—among them were Sonia Verma (now Sonia Singh), Vikram Chandra, #BarkhaDutt, #RajdeepSardesai, #SreenivasanJain, #VishnuSom, and #MayaMirchandani. Former NDTV staffers told me the Roys described their company as a “family.” They did not have a human resources department, and made all the hires themselves.Vikram Chandra is the son of Yogesh Chandra, a former director general of civil aviation, himself the son-in-law of Govind Narain, a former home and defence secretary and governor of Karnataka. One of the NDTV’s top business heads, KVL Narayana Rao, is the son of KV Krishna Rao, a former army general who also served as governor of Jammu and Kashmir and other states. Rajdeep Sardesai is the son of the cricketer Dilip Sardesai, and the son-in-law of Doordarshan’s Bhaskar Ghose. Barkha Dutt’s mother, Prabha Dutt, was a senior journalist. #ArnabGoswami is the son of Manoranjan Goswami, an army officer and BJP member; Manoranjan’s brother Dinesh was a union law minister in the VP Singh government. Sreenivasan Jain is the son of the economist Devaki Jain, and LC Jain, a well-known activist, who served as a member of the Planning Commission and as India’s high commissioner to South Africa. Another early hire, Nidhi Razdan, is the daughter of MK Razdan, who has been the editor-in-chief of the Press Trust of India. Vishnu Som is the son of Himachal Som, a former senior diplomat. Chetan Bhattacharjee, a managing editor, is the grandson of Nirmal Mukarjee, a former cabinet secretary and a governor of Punjab.Sandeep Bhushan, who worked with NDTV for almost a decade, told me it seemed more than a mere coincidence that the channel should hire so many “babalog”—people with bureaucratic connections. Bhushan said that he applied to work with the channel around the year 2000, and gave a “damn good interview,” in spite of which he was rejected. “The next time, I went with clout,” he said. Armed with a reference from a bureaucrat, he reapplied for the same post soon after. He was hired.The channel played a part in shaping the politics of the day. A senior journalist who was a crucial part of the Roys’ newsroom for nearly 15 years told me that after launching a 24-hour channel, NDTV would often get complaints from politicians who were not invited to its panels. Everyone wanted to be seen on the channel, he said, and there would be fights among party leaders over who would appear on #NDTV’s shows.In an essay for the book Television in India, Mehta wrote that since the medium required a face for every story, some leaders began to be seen as “credible representatives of their parties or governments, irrespective of their actual place within the hierarchy.” Appearing on television “often helps political careers,” he wrote. “It helps to be seen by cadres and to be seen by senior party leaders.”The senior #NDTV journalist recalled an anecdote from the late 1990s that showed how upcoming politicians could use television to make their presence felt. It was a practice, he said, that guests who appeared on the 9 pm English show “Star Week,” hosted by Barkha Dutt and Rajdeep Sardesai, usually stayed back in the studio to appear on the Hindi show “Ravivar,” hosted by Pankaj Pachauri and Rupali Tewari. Ahead of Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s historic bus ride to Lahore, in February 1999, Jaitley visited the studio to speak on behalf of the party.“Then Narendra Modi came for the first time,” the senior journalist told me. #Modi appeared undaunted by the task he had been assigned, of presenting a party view that diverged from that of its popular prime minister. The host said, “Atali-ji ne yeh bola hai, Atal-ji ne woh bola hai” (Atal-ji said this, Atal-ji said that), the journalist recounted. Modi replied, “‘Atal-ji toh bolte rehte hain’”—Atal-ji keeps saying things. Modi “lambasted” Vajpayee for the upcoming trip, the journalist recalled. “He was very good,” the journalist said, adding that he thought after the show, “this person will go far.”Despite the political jockeying for spots on its shows, #NDTV occasionally bore the brunt of the establishment’s ire, too. Its coverage of the 2002 Gujarat pogrom prompted one such instance. Mehta wrote in his book that after the violence broke out, channels largely refrained from identifying the community to which most victims belonged—a practice inherited from print journalism. #NDTV, then under Star News, took the decision to state that the victims were Muslims. #BarkhaDutt, who covered the violence, later made a powerful defence of this decision, saying that naming the “community under siege” was not just important to the story, “it was in fact the story, revealing as it did a prejudiced administrative and political system that was happy to stand by and watch.”In response to the channel’s coverage, the BJP government in #Gujarat, under Narendra Modi, blacked it out in the state. Mehta contrasted NDTV’s bold stance to that of Zee, which on 1 March 2002 aired an interview with Jaitley, then the union law minister, in which “the anchor … assured the minister of his network’s support.” In his account of the interview in the magazine Seminar, Rajdeep Sardesai left the network unnamed, but wrote that “one channel openly ‘celebrated’ on air the state government’s decision to censor or blackout channels, with the anchor virtually justifying the line that the media was responsible for inflaming passions.”BY 2002, ITS DEAL WITH STAR was coming to an end, NDTV fell out with the channel over negotiations for a new contract. The Roys broke away to launch their own 24-hour news channels over the next two years: NDTV 24×7 in English, and NDTV India in Hindi. (Its Hindi journalists were also stars, among them Vinod Dua, Pankaj Pachauri, Dibang, Rupali Tewari, Naghma Sahar and Ravish Kumar.) The senior journalist told me that these moves were funded, in large part, by the money NDTV had earned over the years, while investors, such as Morgan Stanley, also put in funds. The broadcast media industry was then a “sunshine sector,” the journalist said, and NDTV was a big brand. Investors were willing to bet on the network’s future.THROUGHOUT NDTV’S EXISTENCE, the Roys have exerted complete control over the network’s editorial vision and its business strategy. But a chain of transactions, beginning in 2007, which is mentioned in the recent Delhi High Court affidavits, suggest that their influence may have waned considerably.That year, Radhika and Prannoy Roy decided to buy back a 7.73-percent stake held by another shareholding entity, GA Global Investments. Promoters may have different reasons for buying back shares, such as if they anticipate that their price will rise, or want to further consolidate their holding in the company. Often, as it was in this case, the deal is struck at a price higher than the market rate— #NDTV’s stock was hovering at around Rs 400 at the time, but the Roys bought shares back at Rs 439.As per Indian stock market regulations, this triggered an “open offer,” which allows other shareholders to sell stake—up to a prescribed limit—to the promoters at the same price. These regulations are meant to ensure that when a large shareholder strengthens her ownership, minority shareholders are given the option to exit if they feel their investment will be affected.Even while the open offer was on, the Roys entered into another deal, in March 2008, which possibly violated capital markets regulations. They signed an agreement with Goldman Sachs to sell the investment bank up to 14.99 percent of the NDTV stake they held. The deal also gave Goldman Sachs special rights in the company, including the right to nominate a director on the board. This deal was not declared to any of the authorities or shareholders, and the transactions, which eventually resulted in #GoldmanSachs gaining 14.6 percent of NDTV’s stock, were presented as open-market sales. Oddly, one director that Goldman Sachs nominated said in a letter—responding to a letter from the stockbroker #SanjayDutt—that he was a “nominee of certain funds managed by #GoldmanSachs which were invested in the Company.” Whose money had come through the bank remains unclear.As they prepared to buy back stock, the Roys found themselves short of money. To plug the shortfall, in July 2008, the Roys borrowed Rs 501 crore from India Bulls Financial Services. The loan marked the beginning of a chain of borrowing that haunts the Roys’ account books to this day.The chief cause for the troubles that ensued was bad timing. As the Roys were carrying out the open offer, the housing loan crisis hit the United States and triggered collapses across global markets. NDTV’s stock took a beating, like those of many other companies, globally and in India. From Rs 400 at the end of July 2008, the share price crashed to less than Rs 100 by the end of October. The Roys watched the value of the shares they had just bought nosedive. It was like the floor had collapsed even as they tried to build a house.To repay the #IndiaBulls loan, the Roys took a loan from ICICI, of Rs 375 crore, at an annual interest rate of 19 percent. To obtain this loan they offered as collateral their entire personal shareholding, as well as that of #RRPR, a total of 61.45 percent of #NDTV’s stock.A December 2010 report in the newspaper Sunday Guardian, co-authored by the journalist #Prayaag Akbar—the son of MJ Akbar, who owned the weekly along with the senior advocate and BJP member Ram Jethmalani—described the workings of this #ICICI loan as “financial chicanery,” and said the company had “indulged in financial misdemeanours and malpractices in connivances with ICICI.” The article claimed that the value of each pledged share was Rs 439, when in fact the price at the time the loan was granted was Rs 99. It alleged that “the worth of the collateral was far less than the amount given” as loan.In January 2011, NDTV sued MJ Akbar and others for defamation in the Delhi #HighCourt, and demanded Rs 25 crore in damages. The Roys claimed that their collateral was more than the value of the #ICICI loan. In December 2011, the court restrained the newspaper from “republishing or recirculating” the article online or in print—it remains unavailable on the paper’s website. The case is currently pending in court. But though #NDTV insisted that the story was defamatory, the transaction had come to the notice of authorities. In April 2013, #SanjayDutt wrote a letter about it to the Reserve Bank of India; the central bank responded the next month saying that the loan “is already receiving our attention.”The ICICI loan was only one link in the larger chain of borrowing that the Roys were trapped in, which had begun with the India Bulls loan. To repay ICICI, on 21 July 2009, the Roys took another loan, of Rs 350 crore, from an entity named Vishvapradhan Commercial Private Limited, or #VCPL. The source of this loan was Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries, which routed the money to VCPL through a subsidiary. Prannoy and Radhika signed the agreement for #RRPR. On behalf of #VCPL, the agreement was signed by KR Raja—an employee of Reliance Industries.The terms of this loan were quite extraordinary. First, the Roys were required to divest a significant chunk of their personal stock in NDTV and transfer it to RRPR, taking its total shareholding from 15 percent to 26 percent of the company. Then, control of RRPR was effectively handed over to VCPL. (Even this transaction, which preceded the loan, raises serious questions of propriety. Radhika and Prannoy sold their shares to RRPR at Rs 4 per share when the market price was more than Rs 130. Had they sold at the market price, they would have made significant “capital gains”—or profit from the sale of an asset. This would, in turn, have attracted taxes. It is possible that selling the shares at a lower price saved the Roys crores in taxes. The Roys have defended their decision in the past, claiming that it was a transfer between promoters, and that they were entitled to sell their stock at any price they chose.)After the Roys’ shares were handed over to RRPR, NDTV received Rs 350 crore from VCPL, which they used to repay the ICICI loan. On 9 March 2010, the Roys together transferred an additional 3.18-percent stake of NDTV, which they held personally, to RRPR, at Rs 4 per share, taking RRPR’s total shareholding in the company to 29.18 percent. VCPL then paid an additional Rs 53.85 crore to RRPR, taking the total amount it loaned to NDTV up to Rs 403.85 crore.The agreement gave #VCPL the right to convert the loan into 99.99 percent of #RRPR’s equity—effectively, complete ownership—not just during the period of the loan but even after—“at any time during the tenure of the Loan or thereafter without requiring any further act or deed on the part of the Lender.” Puzzlingly, this meant that regardless of repayment, VCPL could officially take over RRPR at any time it wanted. For all practical purposes, this was a sale of 29.18 percent of NDTV to VCPL—a greater share than the individual holdings of Radhika and Prannoy Roy.Under the agreement, RRPR was to have three directors, one of whom was to be appointed by VCPL. NDTV could not sell or raise further equity, file for bankruptcy, or do anything that would affect RRPR’s shareholding, without VCPL’s consent. (Additionally, the Roys were also barred from selling or transferring their own shares in the company.) These conditions ensured the Roys no longer had any control over RRPR, which owned nearly one-third of NDTV’s stock; effectively their control over NDTV itself was seriously weakened.From VCPL onwards, the loan trail gets murkier. The company’s documents showed it had no assets, businesses or transactions on its books before the NDTV loan. To lend to RRPR, in the 2010 financial year, VCPL itself borrowed Rs 403.85 crore from Shinano Retail, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance. VCPL forwarded this money to RRPR as an unsecured, interest-free loan. The links between VCPL and Shinano form an Escherian stairwell that lead to Reliance no matter where you begin. VCPL’s directors, Ashwin Khasgiwala and Kalpana Srinivasan, were both employees of Reliance. VCPL shared the same address as the Reliance subsidiary Shinano, which in turn owned part of VCPL. And VCPL’s second owner was also a Reliance subsidiary.In its affidavit to the Delhi High Court, the income tax department was categorical in what it thought of VCPL. Quoting its own earlier report, from June 2011, the affidavit stated that VCPL “has no business activity and is not a genuine concern.” It added that it had forwarded details of its investigations into this “allegedly benami” transaction, to the relevant assessing authorities.In a related matter, also in the Delhi High Court, the income tax department clearly traced the source of the money that VCPL gave RRPR: “M/s #RRPRHoldingsPvtLtd. had taken a loan of Rs 403 crores approx. from M/s #VishvapradhanCommercialPvtLtd., which had taken loan from M/s #ShinanoRetailPvtLtd. and M/s #ShinanoRetailPvtLtd. had taken loans from #Reliancegroupofcompanies.”The fact that Reliance stepped in and helped out a floundering NDTV is borne out by a call recorded at the time, between the senior journalist MK Venu and Reliance’s lobbyist #NiiraRadia. The recording, made by the income tax department, was leaked the next year as part of the tranche that is now collectively called the “Radia tapes.” On 9 July 2009, Radia told Venu that she and Manoj Modi, a close associate of Mukesh Ambani, were visiting Delhi to meet Prannoy. “We need to support Prannoy, you know,” she said. “We feel it needs to be supported.”VCPL’s transactions are key to the question of who owns and controls NDTV. Its loan to RRPR meant that Reliance effectively controlled 29.18 percent of NDTV’s shares, while the Roys’ combined share fell to around 32 percent. This much of the trail has been reported before, though not by mainstream media organisations. The media-focused website Newslaundry, in January 2015, used company filings with the ministry of corporate affairs to track the flow of money, and show that Reliance had acquired a substantial stake in NDTV.But when Newslaundry asked Reliance about this loan, a spokesperson responded: “RIL does not have any direct or indirect interest in NDTV.” This seemed an unlikely assertion given the facts that were known.However, the company appears to have told Newslaundry the truth. Investigations by the income tax department, and information available with the ministry of corporate affairs, show that the trail took a mysterious turn at this point, which severed the link between Reliance and NDTV. During the 2012 financial year, Shinano Retail—to whom RRPR owed money through VCPL—declared in its annual report that VCPL had repaid its loan of Rs 403.85 crore. But the money did not come from NDTV—RRPR’s records for the same year showed that it still owed VCPL Rs 403.85 crore (the company still owes this money). Thus, the money Reliance lent RRPR had been paid back—but not by RRPR.How did this happen? The documents throw some light on the question, but still leave a lot unexplained. They show that during the 2012 financial year, #VCPL received Rs 50 crore from #EminentNetworks, a company owned by Mahendra Nahata, an industrialist, who is also on the board of one Reliance company. The transaction gave Eminent rights over VCPL’s loan to RRPR, worth Rs 403.85 crore.But this does not make intuitive sense. The value of a Rs 403.85 crore loan is, of course, Rs 403.85 crore. It does not stand to reason that VCPL would sell that loan to Eminent for a mere Rs 50 crore. Further, Shinano had declared that it received the entire Rs 403.85 crore from VCPL. But VCPL only had Rs 50 crore on its books that year, paid to it by Eminent. Even if it paid that entire amount to Shinano, that still left more than Rs 350 crore unaccounted for that Shinano claimed it had received from the company.This discrepancy suggests that either Eminent, through VCPL, paid more than the Rs 50 crore it claimed to have paid, or that Shinano received less than the Rs 403.85 crore it claimed to have received. Alternatively, a third party, which is off the books, and still unknown, might have made up the shortfall, and paid Shinano Rs 353.85 crore, helping snip the link between Reliance and NDTV. (The same year, VCPL’s ownership also changed hands, from Reliance companies to entities related to Mahendra Nahata.) If a mystery party is involved, it is perhaps fair to assume that their payment of such a large sum of money would come with rights over the agreement VCPL has with RRPR and the Roys—namely, rights over all of RRPR’s shares, which Mukesh Ambani once held indirectly, and riders on the Roys’ personal stake.NDTV should have declared the VCPL loan transactions to SEBI, as is mandatory for a publicly traded company when its promoter entity changes (RRPR was declared as a promoter entity, and the deal effectively changed its ownership). In response to a complaint from Sanjay Dutt, the regulator claimed in April 2015 that it was “unable to get its hands” on the loan agreement between VCPL and RRPR. This was odd: #SEBI, as the market regulator, should have been able to access the documents of NDTV, a publicly traded company. Further, by this time, the document was already available with another government agency—the income tax department.#NDTV did not inform the ministry of information and broadcasting about these transactions either, although it is mandatory for news companies to declare loans and other agreements to the ministry. What entity currently has indirect control over RRPR is for the moment unknown. It is clear, however, that the Roys’ move to strengthen their hold over NDTV by buying back shares has left them facing the prospect of losing significant control over their company.EVEN AS THE ROYS STRUGGLED with their account books, their newsroom was facing its own set of problems. In April 2004, just a year after the launch of NDTV 24×7, #ArnabGoswami, then the national news editor of the channel, left to launch and head a rival channel, #TimesNow. A year later, NDTV’s managing editor, #RajdeepSardesai, left to set up CNN-IBN with the entrepreneur Raghav Bahl. He took with him the company’s chief financial officer, Sameer Manchanda, who had been with the Roys since 1988.“ Metronation and Imagine were shut down over the next two years. As the pressure on them grew, the Roys resorted to layoffs. Between 2008 and 2009, the network fired approximately 250 people, or 20 percent of its workforce.This marked the beginning of a downslide from which NDTV hasn’t recovered. Its stock price, which reached a high of Rs 511 in January 2008, tumbled to Rs 25 in 2012, and currently hovers between Rs 80 and Rs 100. Its value by market capitalisation—the share price multiplied by the total number of shares—has dropped from around Rs 3,000 crore in early 2008 to less than Rs 600 crore currently. It last recorded a profit, of Rs 21.9 crore, in March 2005. Its annual losses are now in the tens of crores—Rs 84 crore for the financial year 2014 and Rs 46 crore for the financial year 2015.Meanwhile, the network’s editorial credibility also suffered a serious blow. In November 2010, the magazines Open and Outlook published the first set of the #Radiatapes, which prominently featured NDTV’s group editor, #BarkhaDutt.In the leaked conversations, Dutt’s conduct appeared to violate norms of editorial probity. In the most glaring such instance, she agreed to courier information from Radia to the #Congress on behalf of the party’s coalition partner, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. In one of the many conversations between the two, from 22 May 2009, Dutt asked Radia, “Tell me, what should I tell them?” Later the same day, Dutt said, “I’ve had a long chat, and they promised me that Azad will speak to him,” referring to #GhulamNabiAzad of the #Congress, and M Karunanidhi of the #DMK. The conversation took place a month before Radia told Venu that she planned to meet Prannoy in Delhi to “support” him; it was two months before the Roys signed the #VCPL loan agreement with the Reliance employee KR Raja. (A number of individuals involved in the Roys’ financial dealings have been under investigation for other business matters. The serious fraud investigation office has probed KR Raja and Radia for Reliance’s transactions with INX News Private Limited. And Mahendra Nahata, who bought RRPR’s loan in the 2012 financial year, was recently investigated by the CBI as part of the cases related to the sale of 2G spectrum.)EACH OF THE INVESTIGATIONS into NDTV’s business dealings is like a cocked gun pointed at the company. These, more than newsroom troubles, and even questions of ownership, seem to be the biggest threats looming over the company and the Roys.Of these investigations, the probes by multiple agencies into NDTV’s web of offshore transactions are perhaps the most critical. The enforcement directorate and income tax department’s affidavits on their investigations into these matters mention that the CBI and the RBI, among other agencies, are also examining these deals.Some of these transactions were first investigated in the mid 2000s, by an income tax officer named SK Srivastava, whom I met in late September at his office in Noida. A tall man with a toothbrush moustache, Srivastava can rattle off long monologues about NDTV—which he seems to hate passionately—and its finances, without consulting a single document.He started with investigations into alleged violations in NDTV’s tax assessments. (In an apparent conflict of interest, one tax officer who was involved in the assessment, Sumana Sen, was married to an NDTV journalist named Abhisar Sharma, who is now with ABP News.)In his letter, sent in December 2013, Jethmalani accused NDTV and Chidambaram of concealing income of around Rs 5,700 crore, laundering money to the tune of Rs 5,500 crore, evading taxes of about Rs 3,500 crore, and embezzling around Rs 1.5 crore of government money. NDTV had floated “altogether 21 bogus subsidiaries” across the world, Jethmalani thundered at Chidambaram, through which “illicit black money was laundered,” and the money in question “belongs to you and your son.”The minister replied to Jethmalani on 19 December, denying all charges and calling them “outrageous allegations.” He wrote that he had, nevertheless, forwarded the letter and the details to the finance-cum-revenue secretary to “cause an inquiry in a time bound manner and to submit the conclusions of the inquiry in a sealed cover directly to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.” Unconvinced, Jethmalani responded ten days later, saying that he didn’t see how a fair inquiry could be conducted by the minister’s subordinate. He signed off saying, “I regret this matter has to end in the courts of the country or perhaps the Court of the Sovereign People of India.”A similar exchange took place between Prannoy and Gurumurthy in January 2014. In the email conversation, Prannoy tried to convince Gurumurthy, with the help of documents, that his accusations were baseless. Like Jethmalani, Gurumurthy responded, ten days later, saying that he remained unconvinced.Many of the findings from the current investigations pertain to the question of raising foreign capital for a media business. (Until 11 November, a television news company was allowed a maximum of 26 percent of its equity through foreign direct investment. Recently, the Modi government raised this limit to 49 percent.) The #ED affidavit stated that #NDTV had set up a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures to raise capital abroad. Some of these, it said, “directly or indirectly through step down subsidiaries made investments in India.” It claimed that, between 2006 and 2011, “NDTV or related companies in India” received Rs 648.81 crore in foreign funds. (At another point, the affidavit cited a foreign direct investment of Rs 1,295 crore in “NDTV related” companies, though it didn’t specify a time frame for this.)Also citing a CBI inquiry dating to 2011, the affidavit outlined one particularly tangled set of transactions to this end. It begins with a transfer of a sum of Rs 387.62 crore from “NDTV (Media) Mauritius Ltd” to “NDTV Studios Ltd,” an Indian subsidiary of NDTV Limited. “A small portion of these funds were used for investment in 6 new subsidiaries in India in 2009,” the affidavit stated, while a major portion went to a convoluted trail of companies, including some that it describes as subsidiaries of NDTV. “NDTV Studios Ltd and its 6 subsidiaries were thereafter merged with NDTV,” stated the affidavit, “thereby creating doubts about the purpose of their setting up as well as the sources of funds for NDTV (Media) Mauritius Ltd and the need to set up various companies in Mauritius.”Given Jethmalani’s explosive allegations against #Chidambaram, the question arises whether the latest affidavits claimed any link between the company and the minister. As it turns out, the name does appear in the #ED affidavit, but in ambiguous phrasing. “It is alleged that around 294 companies with investors/ share holders having surnames like Chidambaram are running from the same premises as NDTV Network PLC”—a London-based subsidiary of NDTV—the affidavit stated. The phrase “it is alleged” leaves unclear whether it is the ED which is alleging this, or whether the agency is referring to another, possibly older, allegation. Further, the documents don’t identify any individuals beyond the phrase “with surnames like Chidambaram,” and don’t identify any precise allegations of violations that link NDTV with the former minister.The ED affidavit devoted considerable space to the funds raised by the London subsidiary NDTV Network PLC, which filed an application with the Foreign Investment Promotion Board on 4 January 2007 for approval for investment into the “non-news sector in India.” After receiving this approval, the company raised funds from foreign sources to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This included a sum of $150 million raised from NBC Universal, one of the largest media companies in the United States. The money gave NBCU an indirect stake of 26 percent in NDTV Network PLC.Before this deal was announced, a string of emails was exchanged between NDTV’s senior-most executives and consultants of the firm #PricewaterhouseCoopers, in which they discussed the drafting of a press release about the matter. “If asked a question what will the money be used for???” wrote a #PwC executive named Vivek Mehra on 21 May 2008. “We need to decide how to answer this question carefully.”The next day, #PrannoyRoy sent out “a first bash” at the press release, in which he wrote that as a result of the NBCU deal, the parent company #NDTV Ltd now had funds of $150 million “to use for any opportunities in the future including acquisitions, expansion in the news space, or in the beyond-news space.” The phrase “expansion in the news space” continued to appear in the next few drafts of the release, exchanged over email. However, the final press release, published on the NDTV website, did not claim that the funds would be used for news.In its affidavit, the #ED said that it had taken statements from Navneet Raghuvanshi, NDTV’s company secretary, on 17 August, and 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 September last year, as part of its probe. The income tax department summoned NDTV’s vice-chairman, KVL Narayana Rao, around the same time. The ED affidavit ended with the line: “Further investigation in this case is in progress.”On 19 November, the ED stepped up its offensive against #NDTV, and issued a show-cause notice to the company. In it, the agency said it had identified contraventions of the foreign exchange management act, or #FEMA, by the company. It also listed transactions by the company that the RBI has described as spurious. A “note” from the agency about the show-cause notice claimed that the amount involved was Rs 2,030.05 crore. The note ended, echoing the affidavit: “Further investigation under #FEMA is being carried out.”But the sheer number of probes against NDTV, and their depth, is alarming. The figure raised in just the #ED’s show-cause notice, Rs 2,030 crore, is more than three times what #NDTV is worth today. If the allegations in the investigations are proven, the consequences could be devastating for what was once India’s most successful news network.

ICICI loan fraud: Why the Roys of NDTV were not allowed to leave IndiaNDTV founders Prannoy Roy and his wife, Radhika Roy, were prevented from leaving the country recently, the channel claims. In a statement published on its website, the channel has called it a ‘subversion of media freedom’. NDTV in a statement said that they had been stopped on the basis of a “fake and totally unsubstantiated corruption case” filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation about an ICICI Bank loan that their company, RRPR Holdings, had taken.The brief statement reads, “They have been stopped from travelling abroad on the basis of a fake and wholly unsubstantiated corruption case initiated by the CBI that was filed two years ago and in which Radhika and Prannoy Roy have been fully cooperating. Today’s action is, along with events like raids on media owners, a warning to the media to fall in line – or else.”While NDTV cries hoarse about ‘freedom of the press’ being curbed, the allegations of financial impropriety against Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, the promoters of NDTV are extremely grave. More importantly, judicial bodies and statutory investigation agencies have found them in violation of major laws and in some cases held them guilty of fraud, manipulation and use of “deceptive financial instruments” to hide real ownership of NDTV.- Ad -- article resumes -However, the troubles of Radhika Roy and Prannoy Roy started way before the ICICI Bank Loan fracas came into the open.Before the NDTV-ICICI loan fraud case: How it all beganWhile the monetary troubles of NDTV began in 2004, their first shenanigan was their deal with General Atlantic Partners Investment (GA). That deal allegedly violated PIT (Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations) and SAST (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeover Regulations) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The details of that deal have been covered in detail by PGurus and can be read here.In 2007 Radhika and Prannoy Roy bought back 7.73% stake held by GA. NDTV’s stock was hovering at around Rs 400 at the time, but the Roys bought shares back at Rs 439. This inspired an “open offer” that allowed the other investors to sell their stake at the same price that the Roys bought back their shares in – Rs. 439.Allegedly, while the “open offer” was being played out, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy violated Market rules and entered into another contract with Goldman Sachs to sell to them 14.99% of the stake they held in NDTV. This contract gave Goldman Sachs the right to nominate one of their own on the Board of NDTV.Interestingly, this deal was not disclosed either by NDTV, the Roys or Goldman Sachs to the shareholders or the authorities and most crucial and legally binding of them being Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, i.e. the Ministry that licences a News Broadcaster its license of setting up and running a new channel. Eventually, Goldman Sachs owned 14.6% of the shares of NDTV and they were falsely shown as an Open Market Sale, while in reality, they were pre-meditated/intentional trades between Goldman Sachs and the Roys.Oddly, one director that Goldman Sachs nominated said in a letter—responding to a letter from a shareholder (Quantum Securities Limited) —that he was a “nominee of certain funds managed by Goldman Sachs which were invested in the Company.”Letter by Director of NDTV (Goldman Sachs nominee) to Sanjay Dutt (minority shareholder of NDTV)From the letter that was presented to the High Court in 2013, it is clear that Goldman Sachs was not the direct beneficiary of the stake. Intriguingly, it still remains unclear where the money came from and who Goldman Sachs was fronting for in this deal. What is more surprising is that Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has ignored this ownership violation by the Roys and that to the sale being to a “benami” holder i.e. Goldman Sachs.In 2016, SEBI had initiated proceedings against 2 Goldman Sachs entities that were involved in this deal.In 2016, it was reported:“In the first tranche in April, GSIM bought 5.1 million shares. Of this, 4.9 million shares came from NDTV promoters Radhika Roy and Prannoy Roy. In the second tranche, GS Mace along with GSIM as a person acting in concert (PAC) bought 4.03 million shares, the bulk of which came from RRPR Holding, another promoter group shareholder controlled by the Roys. At the Rs 400 levels the stock was trading at that time, the deals would have been worth around Rs 360 crore.In an affidavit filed before the Delhi High court dated August 22, the regulator said: “adjudication proceedings were initiated against GS Mace Holdings Ltd with Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd as PAC for alleged violation of Regulation 7(1) of SAST (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997…” The affidavit was filed in compliance of an April order by the court to give a status report in the case between NDTV and Quantum Securities, a minority shareholder.The deals were disclosed as open market transactions in a filing to the BSE. However, Sebi has received complaints that these were part of a negotiated agreement between the promoters and Goldman Sachs and the relevant details were not disclosed to the exchanges.After this deal, Prannoy and Radhika Roy planned to buy back the shares but evidently, fell short of the funds. To meet the shortfall, they borrowed Rs. 501 crores from India Bulls. Later, to repay that loan, they further borrowed Rs. 375 crores from ICICI.It is this transaction and the loan from ICICI which is the prime focus of this article. It needs to be understood that the NDTV scam has several layers and legs. However, since the Roys themselves have attributed the Central Government not allowing them to leave India to the ICICI case, it bodes well to delve into the details of that transaction threadbare.To understand what the case against Prannoy and Radhika Roy is as far as the ICICI Bank Loan is concerned, one must study the FIR filed against the duo in June 2017.The FIR against Prannoy and Radhika Roy of NDTV in the ICICI loan fraud case (June 2017)The FIR was filed against Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy, NDTV, RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd and unknown officials of ICICI Bank by one Sanjay Dut who was a Director of a company called Quantum Securities Limited. The charges levelled were those of criminal conduct, conspiracy and cheating. Sanjay Dut’s company, Quantum Securities Limited (QSL) is a shareholder both in NDTV and ICICI and filed the FIR as an aggrieved party of the alleged misdeeds.The crux of the issue in the ICICI case is that allegedly, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy caused ICICI a loss of Rs. 48 crores unlawful favours and profit transferred to them. ICICI allegedly also was in cohorts with NDTV and its promoters to transfer the ownership of a news broadcasting company to a shell company. The charges in the FIR also include the laundering of Rs. 403.85 crores in order to create interest in favour of a benami party to gain control of NDTV.Essentially, the allegation levelled by Sanjay Dut is that ICICI acted as a conduit of a benami person to launder funds amounting to Rs. 403.85 crores through a host of shell companies in order to create Benami interest in NDTV with the motive of avoiding detection of the true owner of the funds and the source of funds.During August 2009, the Roys sold their shares in NDTV to RRPR Holding at Rs. 4 per share against its market price of Rs. 140 at that time. Then on 9th March 2010, the Roys bought 34.79 lakh shares of NDTC from RRPR Holding at Rs. 4 per share against the market price of Rs. 140 per share.To fund the purchase of shares that the minority shareholders wanted to sell, Roys created a company called RRPR Holdings Private Limited. RRPR borrowed Rs 501 crore from India Bulls Ltd.To repay part of the India Bulls loan, RRPR borrowed Rs 375 crore from ICICI Bank in October 2008. In August 2009, RRPR found another lender called Vishvapradhan Commercial Private Limited (VCPL) to repay the ICICI loan. VCPL agreed to pay Rs 350 crore to RRPR in July 2009.The FIR alleges that the loan of Rs. 375 crores (which was drawn down to Rs. 350 crores) was secured against collateral of the entire shareholding of the promoters (Radhika and Prannoy Roy) of NDTV and neither the bank or the promoters of NDTV made disclosures of creating of such collateral in favour of the Bank. The disclosure is mandatory according to SEBI and MIB rules.Part of FIRThe FIR also states that according to Banking regulations, no bank can hold as collateral more than 30% shares of a company, however, ICICI held over 61% of the voting capital as collateral and hence, ICICI was actively participating in violating MIB regulations, SEBI regulations and MHA security clearance guidelines for News Media Companies.Sanjay Dut provides further proof of ICICI being hands-in-gloves with NDTV in perpetuating this entire fraud. The FIR says that during the succeeding financial year (2009-2010), NDTV entered into a settlement agreement with the bank on 9th August 2009 and repaid 99% of the loan they had drawn. As RRPR Holdings repaid Rs. 350 crores, in their balance sheet, it was reflected that Rs. 4 crores of repayment to ICICI is still outstanding. However, even though RRPR Balance Sheet showed that ICICI was owed Rs. 4 crores, on 7th August 2009, ICICI issued a letter confirming that the entire amount due to ICICI from RRPR has been ‘paid in full’.Source of funds used to pay off ICICI as mentioned in the FIRThe FIR details the source of funds and how these funds were routed through shell companies by RRPR holdings (NDTV) in order to repay the ICICI loan.In 2009-2010, Reliance Ventures Limited extended a ‘zero coupon optionally convertible loan’ of Rs. 403.85 crores to a company called Shinano Retail Private Limited (SRPL).During the same year, SRPL extended the exact amount down to the last rupee in the same ‘zero-coupon optional convertible loan’ to its associate company Vishvapradhan Commercial Private Limited (VCPL).In the same year, VCPL transferred the entire, exact amount to RRPR Holdings in two tranches. Rs. 350 crores and then, Rs. 53.85 crores. This, even the IT Department and SEBI has held that it was cloaked as a loan but was actually the transfer of control to VCPL by Radhika Roy, Prannoy Roy and RRPR Holdings.Further, the FIR goes on to say that the shell companies involved in this layered transaction had a nominal capital of only Rs 1 lakh with no tangible business. It also says that this is a covert and pre-meditated operation so that an exact amount can be routed to the end beneficiary – RRPR Holdings, to gain control of the listed company NDTV as RRPR holding along with Radhika Roy and Prannoy Roy hold over 61% of fully diluted equity shares of NDTV. This transaction basically transferred the complete control of NDTV to VCPL (The benami front).Part of FIRRole of ICICI and loss to the BankThe FIR alleges that ICICI was in knowledge of the sham agreement between RRPR Holdings and VCPL and thus, violated several laws. While the agreement was going through, ICICI could have asked for the complete portfolio thereby realising that it was a sham agreement, but it didn’t.The role of ICICI doesn’t end there. There clearly seems to be some form of financial jugglery as far as the loan that was due to ICICI.In the NDTV Balance Sheet, year after year has shown an outstanding loan amount due to ICICI.Balance Sheet of RRPR HoldingsIn the footnote of NDTV’s balance sheet which was signed by its auditors, it clearly says that the outstanding ‘potential’ liability of RRPR Holdings towards ICICI Bank is Rs. 10,59,46,123. The total liability due to ICICI was Rs. 15 crores – Rs 10.59 crores appeared in the footnote and Rs 4.40 crores appeared in the Balance Sheet itself.However, it was at the same time that ICICI issued a letter to RRPR Holdings saying that their liability had been paid in full.Letter issued by ICICI BankThe question thus arises that if RRPR itself had admitted in their Balance Sheet year after year that their outstanding liability to ICICI Bank was to the tune of Rs. 15 crores, how did ICICI issue a letter that confirmed no amount was due or payable to the bank? Further, RRPR has the outstanding amounts clearly shown in the Balance Sheet and also in the notes to accounts audited by their auditor and signed by Roys.Further, the Balance Sheet of RRPR Holdings says that the amount shall be repayable to ICICI after market capitalisation of NDTV reaches a ‘certain milestone’ according to the settlement agreement dated 6th August 2009. Such a contingency agreement, according to the FIR is not permissible under the Banking Regulation Act, and thus, ICICI was knowingly involved in financial chicanery.The trouble doesn’t end there. Other than being in violation of SEBI and Banking regulations, ICICI also seems to be in violation of FEMA and PMLA rules. According to the FIR, since ICICI was in knowledge of the agreement between RRPR Holdings and VCPL and failed to do its due diligence, specifically, because the agreement between the two involved a cross border transaction to the tunes of USD 85 million and ICICI was aware of that.Agreement between RRPR and VCPLFurther, the FIR states that the actual, total loss to ICICI is to the tune of Rs. 48.02 crores.Part of FIRICICI loss and Prannoy Roy’s personal gainThe FIR makes another grave charge against not just ICICI but also Prannoy Roy personally. It says that on 8th March 2010, the same Financial Year as the dubious settlement between ICICI and RRPR Holdings, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy had the means and funds to pay off ICICI but chose not to.In fact, the FIR makes further grave charges. The FIR says that at the same time, VCPL further paid Rs. 53.85 crores to RRPR Holdings which was then directly siphoned off/paid to Prannoy Roy personally from the RRPR Holdings Bank account on the very same day that VCPL transferred that money to RRPR Holdings.Part of FIRThe FIR further states that ICICI bank overlooked this additional payment and did not recover the amount outstanding to the bank even though the promoters gained at the loss of the bank by siphoning off money into their personal account via RRPR books. It also says that the Rs. 4.40 crores that remain outstanding has not been recovered and the bank has not made any effort in that direction.QSL puts the estimate of loss accrued to ICICI bank at Rs. 48 crores.Question on ICICI and NDTV that must be answeredThus, from the FIR itself, the following questions arise:What were the motives of ICICI and the promoters of NDTV in concealing the fact that the loan of Rs 375 crores extended to RRPR Holding was after the creation of collateral of the entire shareholding of NDTV?Why did the Bank not recover the full amount of the liability and instead, issue a letter that said RRPR had no dues outstanding to the Bank even though RRPR’s Balance Sheet clearly mentioned outstanding liability.Why did ICICI waive off its interest income?Why did ICICI choose to participate in an agreement that seems illegal and breaks several SEBI, IT, FEMA and PMLA rules?Who were the key officers of ICICI Bank at the top level involved in this deal and were they in contact with some industrialists or politicians to facilitate this deal?What the FIR demandsThe FIR makes the following prayers.Part of FIRIt says:CBI to investigate ICICI Bank.Investigate who the true owner of NDTV is.Investigate what role did ICICI play in facilitating this clandestine change of control.The Modus Operandi of this entire operation.Investigate why were USD 85 Million of NDTV funds lying overseas and were thereafter illegally brought to India as leverage to make promoters gain Rs. 403.85 crores.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Order in 2019 for Assessment year 2009-2010, 2010-2011The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had upheld the addition of long term capital gains (LTCG) tax against Prannoy Roy and Radhika, both promoters of NDTV for realising share sale consideration in the guise of loan. The case was related to purchase and sale of shares of NDTV in August 2009 by RRPR Holding Pvt Ltd and the Roys and concealment of income of over Rs. 117 crores each during two assessment years.One of the most pertinent observations of ITAT was the following:ITAT JudgementThe Roys presented the argument that this transaction was held between closely related parties and hence, there is no motive of tax evasion. The ITAT summarily rejected the argument saying that at that point itself, the Roys have failed to explain by credible evidence the reasons for buying the shares of NDTV at Rs. 4 per share when the quoted price of the share was Rs. 140 per share. Thus, the Roys cannot say that there was no motive for tax evasion.This pertains to facts mentioned in the FIR itself. During August 2009, the Roys sold their shares in NDTV to RRPR Holding at Rs. 4 per share against its market price of Rs. 140 at that time. Then on 9 March 2010, the Roys bought 34.79 lakh shares of NDTC from RRPR Holding at Rs. 4 per share against the market price of Rs. 140 per share.The Assessing Officer had held that this transaction was done to hide the LTCG and that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain is nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV Limited.ITAT JudgementFurther, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is a Director of NDTV and holding ‘substantial stake and is in a position that can influence the decision of that company’. Therefore, the actual nature of the transaction has to be examined by “lifting the corporate veil” which could reveal that NDTV and the Roys are not really distinct identities as far as this transactions are concerned and both acted in connivance.Interestingly, the ITAT bench also observed that RRPR Holdings could be a shell company considering it had no assets other than the shares of NDTV.ITAT JudgementThe AO observed that “It is apparent that if the shares are transferred at Rs. 4 per share, the assessee will pay capital gain tax only considering the sale value of those shares at Rs. 4 per share whereas the RRPR Holdings will obtain loan on those shares at the listed price of share shares of NDTV Limited, free of interest. In a way, it was a methodology devised to pledge the shares of promoters to obtain interest-free loan for an indefinite tenure coupled with call option agreements to transfer the shares to NDTV Limited. This shows a clear-cut benefit resulting in the hands of the assessee and Dr Prannoy Roy”.The contents of the FIR was further verified when ITAT observed, “it is apparent that RRPR Holdings private limited is merely a company to borrow loan, which was not to be repaid but to be used by the promoters till the loans get converted into the transfer of the shares of NDTV limited by RRPR Holdings Ltd in favour of lender”.SEBI Order that confirmed fraudulent conduct on the part of Prannoy and Radhika Roy of NDTV in ICICI loan caseOn 26 June 2018, SEBI ordered Vishvapradhan Commercial Pvt Ltd (VCPL) to make a public offer for acquiring shares of NDTV. In 2009, VCPL had assumed controlling stake in NDTV by giving a loan of Rs 350 crore to its promoters Radhika Roy and Prannoy Roy Holdings Pvt Limited (RRPR), effectively acquiring 52% of NDTV.SEBI stated that this was done in violation of their takeover norms. SEBI noted that the takeover exercise “has been conveniently couched as a loan agreement.” It further directed VCPL to pay 10% interest on top of a takeover fee to the former shareholders of the company.The SEBI order states, “It is evident from the conduct of VCPL, and of RRPR, Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy, that the intention of providing loan to RRPR was not to acquire “control” over RRPR or NDTV and the Loan Agreement is a normal lending transaction to enable RRPR to repay its then existing debt”.The SEBI order further says the VCPL had in a 2016 letter stated that the “source for the loan was the borrowing from Reliance Strategic Investment Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance Industries Limited” and VCPL had also submitted the Article of Association and Memorandum of Association of all three companies that entered into a contract with RRPR. VCPL had claimed that all three companies were associated with each other.SEBI noted, however, that the three companies had no history of any lending activity and that the “financial statements in the annual reports paint a very odd picture” of VCPL and the two associated companies that entered into a contract with NDTV and its promoters.SEBI also says that while VCPL’s revenue for the year ending March 2017 shows only Rs. 60,000, its asset side in the Balance Sheet has more than 400 crores in long term loans and advances.SEBI OrderIt further says, “These reports as provided by the noticee question the motive of the noticee in entering into the transaction with the promoters of NDTV Ltd. A company or financial institution in the general practice of lending may be expected to have such exceptional clauses in loan agreements. Instead, in the current set of facts and circumstances, it is clear that the noticee and it’s associate companies had neither the history of advancing such loans nor do they appear to have had the financial wherewithal to advance loans on such liberal terms. Further, assuming the shares of NDTV did form the collateral for the loan, despite the loan being substantially under-collateralised, the lender/noticee has not sought any repayment despite market value having almost continuously eroded till date. A prudent person would not expect that a financial lender would be so unperturbed as to not seek repayment of its protected principal amount till date”.SEBI OrderThe SEBI also maintained the illegitimacy of the transaction by concluding that the transaction was only to gain control of NDTV by VCPL right from the day of the execution of the agreement.The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)MoneyLife had reported the following:“SAT had observed that RRPR Holding took a loan of Rs. 350 crore from ICICI Bank Ltd, at an interest rate of 19% per annum. This loan was required to be repaid within a specific period. Finding it difficult to repay the interest and principal amount RRPR Holding took two loans from Vishva Pradhan Commercial Pvt Ltd (VCPL) totalling about Rs. 400 crore in July 2009 and January 2010.From their individual demat accounts, Prannoy Roy and wife Radhika Roy transferred a total of 6,25,000 shares of NDTV to their joint demat account. On 19 June 2008, there shares were sold from the Roys’ joint demat account. The Roys claimed that the shares sold were long-term capital gains (LTCG) asset and its cost of acquisition was only Rs. 4,092. The income thus earned was shown as LTCG that was challenged by the Income Tax department.The assessing officer (AO) held that shares transferred by Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy from the joint demat account are a short-term capital asset as they were acquired only on 28 December 2007 and sold on 19 June 2008 on first in-first out (FIFO) basis applicable to the dematerialised securities. The AO also considered the cost incurred by the Roys for crediting the shares into the joint demat account on 28 December 2007, accordingly the computation resulted in short-term capital gain (STCG) of Rs1.30 crore each for the Roys as against the claim of LTCG”.It is to be mentioned here that Prannoy Roy had as usual brazened it out and said that the ITAT order was ‘legal and technical’ in nature and had to do with the classification of Short Term Capital Gains and Long Term Capital Gains. He had also said that this ITAT order would be challenged by him. However, MoneyLife does quote him on him being named directly as a recipient of the ill-gotten benefit of the transactions.The SAT noted some elements of the SEBI order and made observations regarding the agreement between RRPR Holdings and VCPL too. It was agreed that VCPL will give interest-free loan for a period of 10 years on the condition that the principal amount would be paid within 10 years and that the VCPL will have a right of first refusal on 50% of the shares in the event the said shares are sold in the market. In fact, the agreement basically gave the ownership of NDTV to VCPL and as we have already seen, VCPL was a shell company.Interestingly, VCPL was also given the option of transferring 30% of the shareholding of RRPR Holdings to itself at the price of Rs. 214.65 per share. It was stated that at the time the loan agreement was executed, the price of the NDTV share was Rs. 130 per share. SAT had observed that the price of Rs. 214.65 per share was specifically decided to cover the loan amount of Rs. 403.85 crores. SAT had also noted the SEBI findings discussed above that had found the agreement to be a sham.Other Shenanigans of the Roys and NDTVIn 2015, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had imposed a fine of ₹2 crore on New Delhi Television for late disclosure of the fact that the company had received a tax demand of ₹450 crore from the income tax department. I-T department had raised the demand after assessing the income of NDTV for the assessment at ₹833.33 for the assessment year 2009-10, against the loss of ₹64.83 declared by the company in its return.NDTV had received the tax demand in February 2014, but it didn’t inform the stock exchange about the same, thereby violating listing norms of exchange. The Exchanges came to know about the fact three months later, only after the company disclosed it in its annual report. Therefore, SEBI had imposed a fine of ₹2 crore on the company in 2015, as listed companies are required to disclose any “material event” immediately. Of this, ₹25 lakh was imposed for failing to furnish information on time, and ₹1.75 crore fine was imposed for failing to comply with listing conditions.In 2018, SEBI had imposed an additional penalty of ₹10 on NDTV, ₹3 lakhs each of the 3 directors, and ₹3 lakh on the compliance officer Anoop Singh Juneja. Juneja was fined ₹2 lakh for violation of listing norms, and ₹1 lakh for violation disclosure practices. This additional fine on NDTV was imposed under the prevention of insider trading guidelines, while the directors were fined for violating the listing agreement. The three directors fined by SEBI are Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy and Vikramaditya Chandra. NDTV had filed an appeal with the SAT against the SEBI order in 2018.The SAT order in August 2019 found that NDTV indeed violated clause 36 of the listing agreement by not disclosing the tax demand immediately. The Tribunal ruled that ‘material events’ have to be reported immediately as they have ‘material impact’. Justifying the penalty of ₹25 lakhs for non-disclosure, the SAT said that the AO could have even imposed a penalty of ₹1 crore, as it is a serious violation. The order also said that the ₹1.75 crore penalty for violating listing norms is justified. The SAT order states, “In our opinion, considering the material event which was not disclosed we are of the opinion, that the penalty imposed is just and proper in the circumstances of the case”.SAT also upheld the additional penalty imposed on NDTV and the personal penalty imposed on three directors in 2018. The order states that the Directors cannot escape their liability of the penalty imposed, because the decision to not disclose the tax demand was a conscious decision taken by the company.But the SAT said that imposition of the penalty of ₹2 lakh on compliance officer Anoop Singh Juneja was unjustified. The order states that the officer works under the direction of the board of directors, and the officer is not responsible for complying with the listing agreement. But the officer is liable for Corporate Disclosure Practices, and therefore the penalty of ₹1 lakh was upheld.The Niira Radia angle in the NDTV-ICICI caseOne must recall, as discussed earlier in the article, that in 2009, Reliance Ventures Limited extended a ‘zero coupon optionally convertible loan’ of Rs. 403.85 crores to a company called Shinano Retail Private Limited (SRPL), and then, SRPL had transferred the exact same amount to VCPL, the shell company that virtually came to own NDTV later.One recalls a conversation between Niira Radia and the now The Wire journalist MK Venu about NDTV. Niira Radia had told MK Venu that she and Manoj Modi, a close associate of Mukesh Ambani, were visiting Delhi to meet Prannoy. “We need to support Prannoy, you know,” she said. “We feel it needs to be supported.”Reportedly, Reliance had denied any investment in NDTV when NewsLaundry got in touch with them. However, the evidence has clearly pointed to another direction.Clampdown on Press Freedom?The Roys have maintained that the Modi led government has been muzzling freedom of the press, with its investigation into NDTV, because the channel is predisposed to covering stories which go against the Modi government. Essentially, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy are saying that the CBI, SEBI, SAT and the High Court have been controlled and influenced by the Modi government. All agencies have essentially said that NDTV and the Roys specifically are in the wrong. The allegations have spanned from fraud to forming shell companies and even tax evasion. The case dates back to 2007 and is not a phenomenon that has happened recently. In fact, the High Court order that attests to the Roys raising Rs. 1100 crores by dubious means is yet to be covered and is outside of the purview of this article.Through all of this, NDTV as a news channel has not been barred from airing or covering the stories that they choose to cover. The case itself is against Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy primarily, with the company being a separate entity altogether and is spearheaded by a shareholder of the company, Sanjay Dut.The Roys and their allied lackeys thus screaming “Freedom of the Press” when the Roy’s have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar seems like a mere diversionary tactic.The layers of the NDTV scam are aplenty and range between several chapters. The ICICI loan and VCPL is merely one aspect of it, albeit, a complicated one. In subsequent articles, we will delve deeper into the specifics of several aspects of their alleged shenanigans, and through it all, NDTV will continue to air news. One certainly does wonder how the Modi government has clamped down on the freedom of the press, then?In fact, Roys have tried to aggressively silence any voice that spoke of their alleged financial misadventures. Sanjay Dutt, Quantum Securities P Ltd. and its Directors have been sued for defamation by NDTV in the Bombay HC. Interestingly, Roy’s case is against Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy primarily, who are also shareholders of NDTV. Now, one has to ask why NDTV, which is essentially Quantum Securities P Ltd’s own company (since Quantum is a minority shareholder) would sue them when he is trying to protect the company (NDTV) from the financial shenanigans of its promoters?Earlier, the case of the ICICI loan was brought up Sunday Guardian (M J Akbar) and NDTV sued them for defamation. However, the Delhi HC dismissed the case in Sunday Guardian/M J Akbar’s favour and passed a Judgement after many years of litigation.In essence, the entire case here is of financial chicanery, and the facts of the case have been attested to by various competent authorities, all, holding the Roys in the wrong side of the law at various levels. Prannoy Roy calling this a clampdown on Press Freedom is essentially, them trying to activate and entire establishment that goes to unimaginable lengths to protect their own.