Filed in the Delhi High Court:- Case Number:- CS(OS) No.

3049 of 2011
New Delhi Television Limited (Plaintiff) vs Mr. M.J.Akbar & Other Defendants
Document filing date: - 10.02.2012

Quote
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE TO DR. ROY

From: Luthra Delhi <delhi@luthra.com>

To: joyeetabasu@gmail.com <joyeetabasu@gmail.com>

Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7.16 pm

Quote

Dear Joyeeta Basu,

Our Clients Dr. Roy, Mrs. Roy and RRPR instruct us to respond as follows to your questionnaire:

Your earlier articles and your current list of questions are full of rubbish, appalling journalism and
obviously motivated to libel and defame. Moreover, you havent shown us your current article so we
have no idea of its real contents. Last time you asked a set if questions but the headlined banner article
was totally different in content and had nothing to do with the questions you had asked. We respond,
not to join cause with you but because your unfortunate readers deserve some semblance of sense and
truth.

The following are some examples of your key libellous statements:

The Sunday Guardian says the promoters made a loss of Rs 206 crores and asks why they didnt pay tax
on this. Nobody pays tax on losses. Didnt you know? In any case there was no loss.

**The Sunday Guardian says some shares were Rs. 4 while others were at Rs. 140. Silly query. These are
transactions between promoters and do not affect any other shareholder in any way. These are
commonly done as per the law, within promoter group and off market. The shares held by the promoter
group always remain the same. All these transactions are as per SEBI rules and publicly available. Again
simple finance and everything openly declared. (Unlike The Sunday Guardian which has secret funding,
not declared to anyone and strange sources of funds. Please could you be as transparent as NDTV and
declare the sources of your loans, where your share capital came from and whether its true your money
comes from the mafia as widely alleged?)

**The Sunday Guardian says that loan affects NDTV. Rubbish once again. The ICICI loan (since paid off)
was a personal loan to the promoters and has nothing at all to do with the company NDTV. Surely you
know the basic distinction between promoters and the company? Moreover, everything is declared
publicly to the ROC (unlike The Sunday Guardian which filed its balance sheet four months late with the
RoC and even more seriously, has failed to file its annual return with the ROC till date) and to SEBI so
there is no violation of any Act as charged by you libellously.

**The Sunday Guardian writes that NDTV and the promoters indulged in misdemeanours during a
buyback of shares. False. There was absolutely no buy-back of shares at all. This can be easily
crosschecked through exchanges and shareholders. The promoters, Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy and RRPR
(also a publicly declared promoter), made an open offer strictly by SEBI rules. The price of Rs. 439 was
arrived at on the basis of a well-known, accepted and practised SEBI formula. Again easily checked out
but The Sunday Guardian didnt bother to check shoddy journalism.
Page 1/2
**The Sunday Guardian writes that India Bulls was compelled to recall the loan. False. India Bulls never
recalled the loan. It didnt need to because the value of the security was always greater than the loan
given by India Bulls.

**The Sunday Guardian writes that ICICI gave the promoters a loan even though the collateral was far
less than the amount of the loan. False. The promoters collateral was Rs. 470 crores (39614759 shares
@ Rs. 118.67 per share) while the loan was under Rs. 350 crores. The Sunday Guardian seems to
deliberately forget to calculate the value of the shares of all three entities of the promoters and
mistakenly only takes one of the three promoters RRPR. Easy to check shoddy and motivated
journalism.

**The Sunday Guardian suggests that there is something wrong in selling shares above the face value of
the shares NDTV Imagine [now sold] shares representing a face value of Rs. 10 were sold at Rs 776.
We would like to ask The Sunday Guardian What is the relationship between the face value of a share
and its market price? Every single share in the stock market has a face value of 5 or 10, but trades at all
sorts of values. An Infosys share has a face value of Rs 1 but has a market value of Rs 3000. Needless to
say all the transactions were made at Market value prices negotiated with reputed third parties.
Moreover, all these values and prices were publicly declared at every stage to the exchanges and to the
media. All you have to do to verify is to do a Google search.

**The Sunday Guardian writes The benefit of such high premium obtained by these shares has not
reached the Indian investors in the company. NDTV shares, on the other hand, are slipping even further,
and losses rising. False. Obvioulsy, higher the prices that shares are sold at, the better it is for
shareholders. These were subsidiaries of NDTV, so all shareholders of NDTV benefited from the high
value.

Sincerely,

Luthra & Luthra

Law Offices

Unquote

Page 2/2