New Delhi:
One97 Communications Ltd, proprietor of the Paytm model, its CEO Vijay Shekhar Sharma and his brother Ajay Shekhar Sharma on Thursday settled with markets regulator SEBI a case pertaining to the corporate’s Worker Inventory Choices (ESOPs) by paying a complete quantity of Rs 2.8 crore.
As part of the settlement, Vijay Sharma is not going to settle for any contemporary ESOPs from any listed firm for a interval of three years, in keeping with an order handed by SEBI. As well as, SEBI has directed One97 Communications (OCL) to cancel ESOPs granted to the 2 brothers. Accordingly, ESOPs of two.1 crore and a couple of.23 lakh granted to Vijay and Ajay respectively had been cancelled.
Final month, Vijay Sharma voluntarily surrendered 2.1 crore shares value about Rs 1,800 crore, One97 Communications acknowledged in a regulatory submitting. Additional, OCL and Vijay Sharma remitted Rs 1.11 crore every, whereas Ajay Sharma paid Rs 57.11 lakh to settle the matter.
Additional, SEBI disgorged Rs 35.86 lakh from Ajay Sharma with respect to the sale of three,720 OCL shares obtained upon train of the ESOPs. The order got here after OCL and the 2 brothers approached SEBI proposing to settle the pending proceedings by way of a settlement order “with out admitting or denying the findings of reality and conclusions of legislation”.
The matter pertains to the eligibility of Vijay Sharma to obtain Worker Inventory Choices of One97 Communications. The Securities and Alternate Board of India (SEBI) had carried out an examination within the matter of OCL and two brothers relating to the eligibility of Vijay Shekhar Sharma to obtain ESOPs of the corporate.
The regulator famous that OCL had granted 2.1 crore ESOPs to Vijay Sharma in October 2021 and a couple of.26 lakh ESOPs to Ajay Sharma in Might 2022. Following the examination, a Present Trigger Discover (SCN) was issued to them in February 2024. In its present trigger discover, Vijay Sharma was allegedly disclosed because the promoter of One97 Communications within the annual returns of the corporate filed with the Registrar of Firms previous to the FY 2020-21.
There was no materials change in his rights or affect over the administration of the corporate however Vijay Sharma declassified himself as non-promoter on July 12, 2021 simply earlier than submitting of IPO paperwork by OCL on July 15, 2021.
Additional, Vijay Sharma allegedly created such a scheme by way of association of switch of a portion of his fairness in OCL to a household belief — created a couple of days previous to submitting of provide paperwork for IPO by OCL– managed by him in order that he may proceed to train management over greater than 10 per cent fairness of OCL immediately and not directly and circumvent the provisions of the SEBI (Share Primarily based Worker Advantages and Sweat Fairness) norms for getting arbitrarily enormous variety of ESOPs to himself to the detriment of public shareholders.
OCL allegedly allowed such actions by Vijay Sharma to bypass norms. Additionally, Vijay Sharma had particular rights by advantage of his place as founding father of OCL and he was additionally the Managing Director of OCL. Therefore, it’s alleged that he was ready to affect the decision-making of the Nomination and Remuneration Committee whereas approving grant of ESOPs to himself and his brother Ajay.
It’s additional alleged that ESOPs granted to Ajay Sharma had been beneath the affect of Vijay Sharma as simply 10 months in the past, the ESOPs granted to Ajay had been cancelled citing that the Firms Act prohibits issuance of ESOPs to promoter Group and SEBI’s definition of promoter group consists of relations.
OCL and Vijay Sharma allegedly made incorrect disclosures within the provide paperwork by disclosing Vijay as a non-promoter public shareholder. Vijay Sharma had not supplied the mandatory disclosures required to be given by the promoter of an organization, together with promoters’ contribution and lock-in interval, profile of the promoter and declarations to be submitted to the inventory exchanges, particulars of fee or profit to promoter, SEBI alleged.
(Apart from the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is printed from a syndicated feed.)