SEBI v. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. and others (diverted funds and false accounts, 2026)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 8, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the order; an independent second reading of 60 SEBI records agreed on every field for 56, the four misses being penalty amounts. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (sebi-100055-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2026) by email

A SEBI chief general manager found that Mediaone Global Entertainment, a Chennai media company, diverted Rs 99.48 crore and falsified its books, with its managing director and other officers held responsible. The order restrains five noticees from the securities market for two to three years and imposes monetary penalties on all seven.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

9.9m INR

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars. This regulator states penalties in INR. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

The order of 27 February 2026 was made by a chief general manager of SEBI acting as quasi-judicial authority. It names Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. (MGEL), a Chennai-based media and entertainment company, and six individuals connected with it: managing director Suryaraj Kumar, executive director K Sai Prasad, J Murali Manohar, M Srinivas Kumar and Timothy Alfred Joseph Moses, and Saraswathy Gopalan.

The case began in a SEBI investigation of Eros International Media Limited, which had written off Rs 63.61 crore of advances to MGEL for film co-production. That write-off exceeded MGEL's whole asset base, and MGEL reported negligible revenue for several years, which led SEBI to examine the company's own fund flows, accounts and disclosures to investors.

The order finds that MGEL diverted Rs 99.48 crore and manipulated its books to hide it, and that it recorded fictitious revenue transactions in several financial years. It also finds that the company treated an unpaid dividend liability as income, and that several officers gave misleading answers or did not comply with SEBI summons. The findings are made under section 12A of the SEBI Act, regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations and the listing regulations, with different provisions applied to the company, the managing director, the executive director and the others.

The directions require MGEL to recover the Rs 99.48 crore with 12 per cent annual interest and restore it to its books within three months, and to transfer Rs 6,17,73,168 of dividend and interest to the Investor Education and Protection Fund. Restraints from the securities market and from office in listed companies run for three years for MGEL and Mr Kumar and two years for Mr Manohar, Mr Prasad and Mr Srinivas Kumar. Individual penalties range from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 28 lakh and total Rs 99 lakh, including Rs 26 lakh on the company.

The record does not show whether any noticee appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, whether the diverted money was recovered, or what investor losses resulted. It describes no criminal case. The order is a regulatory finding and penalty, not a conviction.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure (falsified accounts and diverted funds). The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the order.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 2 techniques in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2026-02-27 SEBI final order imposing restraints and penalties

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEBI order
• SEBI order (PDF)

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.