The Fashion TV India rights dispute has intensified after a Section 161 statement linked to FIR 0842/2025 alleged unauthorised operations and financial irregularities. The statement by Sushil Manindranath Vaghmare claims exclusive rights rest with Fashion Television India Pvt. Ltd. under a 2012 MOU. Allegations include parallel entities, misrepresentation, and a ₹9 crore cross-border fund trail involving Kashiff Sardar Hasim Khan Malik. Authorities are expected to verify these claims through ongoing investigation and legal scrutiny.

Fashion TV India rights dispute under scrutiny: Section 161 statement flags alleged fraud network, shell entities and ₹9 crore hawala trail

An explosive Section 161 CrPC statement linked to FIR 0842/2025 raises serious allegations of unauthorised deals, parallel corporate structures and cross-border fund flows tied to the Fashion TV brand in India.

Fashion TV India rights dispute has come under intensified scrutiny after a detailed Section 161 CrPC statement by Sushil Manindranath Vaghmare outlined a pattern of alleged unauthorised operations and financial irregularities.

Vaghmare, son of Manindranath Janardan Vaghmare, identified himself as an authorised representative of Fashion Television India Pvt. Ltd. (FTIPL), operating from Maker Chambers, Worli, Mumbai.

According to the statement, FTIPL holds clear and exclusive rights to operate the Fashion TV brand in India, as established under the 2012 Supreme Court-settled MOU, leaving little ambiguity over ownership.

The statement emphasises that any ongoing proceedings relate only to the recovery of minimum guarantee dues and 22.5 per cent revenue share, not to the ownership or control of brand rights.

Supported by board resolutions, MCA records and formal filings, the statement forms part of a broader investigation tied to FIR 0842/2025 registered in Gorakhpur.

Key witness Vikas Bansal alleges a multi-year fraud build-up

Vikas Bansal’s role and the alleged build-up of evidence

The statement claims that Vikas Bansal, described as both a key witness and alleged victim, spent nearly three years compiling evidence of a structured fraud linked to the Fashion TV brand.

According to the account, Bansal documented a pattern of alleged activities involving Kashiff Sardar Hasim Khan Malik, Adam Lisowski (Michel Adam Lisowski) and other associates.

These allegations include claims of misrepresentation of authority, parallel operations and systematic execution of unauthorised agreements across India.

Vaghmare stated that Bansal’s findings prompted a deeper review of the FIR, the 2012 MOU and FTIPL’s internal documentation.

To view the case FIR – Click here

For viewing the other 17 different FIR copies – Click Here

To view other case-related documents – Click here

2012 Supreme Court-settled MOU cited as decisive document

MOU framework and assertion of undisputed Indian rights

At the core of the dispute lies the MOU dated 14 September 2012, executed between FTIPL and F.T.V Ltd BVI (Company No. 226962) under Supreme Court supervision.

The statement asserts that the agreement clearly granted FTIPL exclusive and renewable rights to operate the Fashion TV brand in India, alongside defined revenue-sharing obligations.

It further states that no parallel business or third-party agreements were permissible without FTIPL’s written approval, forming the legal backbone of the present dispute.

Against this backdrop, the statement suggests that subsequent activities described in the FIR may constitute direct deviations from the agreed framework, if established through investigation.

Parallel entities, Lalit Modi-linked references and alleged misrepresentation

Shell structures and contested authority in Fashion TV operations

The statement points to a network of entities, including Fashion TV Ltd BVI (1713231), Fashion TV India Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Fashion TV India, allegedly used in parallel operations.

It also references documentation involving Lalit Modi-linked company associations, though the exact nature and role of such links remain subject to verification.

According to Vaghmare, these entities were allegedly presented to investors as legitimate rights holders, while the original MOU entity (226962) was not disclosed.

The statement alleges this structure enabled the execution of franchise agreements and the collection of funds without FTIPL’s consent, raising questions over authority and compliance.

Vaghmare further stated that rape accused Kashiff Khan was never authorised by FTIPL, and allegedly operated under directions linked to Adam Lisowski, facilitating agreements and investor outreach.

Also Read: Research Links Ambedkar’s Vision to India’s Future.

Dissolution of the original entity and disputed settlements raise red flags

Corporate restructuring, Juhi Singh settlement and control concerns

The statement notes that F.T.V Ltd BVI (226962) was renamed Future to Victory Ltd BVI in 2016 and subsequently dissolved in 2023.

This sequence, according to Vaghmare, may have complicated the enforcement of FTIPL’s rights and coincided with the emergence of alternate entities such as Company No. 1713231.

A settlement involving Juhi Singh has also been questioned, with the statement asserting it lacked FTIPL’s consent and fell outside the framework of the 2012 MOU.

The document further cites a 2022 settlement naming Kashiff as claimed MD, Adam as Director and Maximilian as witness, with financial terms including USD 50,000.

Related News: Kashiff Khan Bail Rejected in FashionTV Gorakhpur Fraud Case.

₹9 crore hawala trail allegation and cross-border financial scrutiny

Email evidence and alleged international fund movement

One of the most serious claims in the statement relates to an email allegedly sent by Kashiff Khan to Adam Lisowski and international associates.

The email reportedly included a sealed and signed Excel sheet documenting approximately ₹9 crore transferred from Fashiontv India Pvt. Ltd. to overseas-linked entities.

According to the statement, these transfers allegedly occurred through a mix of banking channels and hawala networks, raising potential regulatory concerns.

Vaghmare’s account suggests that, if substantiated, such transactions could fall within the ambit of FEMA, PMLA and other financial compliance frameworks.

Kamala Tower flagged as potential evidence hub

Search request and urgency of investigation

The statement identifies UG-9, Kamala Tower, BKC, Mumbai, as a key operational location where critical evidence may be stored.

This reportedly includes franchise agreements, financial records, electronic devices and transaction data, all of which could be central to the investigation.

It warns that any delay may risk destruction of evidence or further movement of funds, particularly given ongoing occupancy-related developments at the premises.

The statement also calls for the immediate inclusion of Adam Lisowski in the investigation, citing his alleged central role in decision-making and financial flows.

High-stakes commercial dispute enters deeper investigative phase

As Sprouts News understands it, the statement presents a detailed but one-sided account within an ongoing legal and criminal process.

The allegations, if proven, could have significant implications for brand ownership enforcement, cross-border financial accountability and franchise regulation frameworks in India.

For now, the focus shifts to investigators, who must verify the documentary trail, examine the roles of named individuals and determine whether the claims withstand legal scrutiny.

Kashiff Khan controversies explained: Disputes over Fashion TV rights, franchise deals and financial allegations

Multiple complaints, legal filings and statements have linked Kashiff Khan to a series of disputes involving brand rights, corporate structures and investor agreements, though most matters remain legally contested.

Kashiff Khan’s controversies have drawn attention in recent years amid ongoing legal disputes related to the use of the Fashion TV brand in India and associated commercial arrangements.

Khan, who has been associated with entities such as Fashion TV India Pvt. Ltd., has been named in complaints and statements alleging unauthorised representation and business activities.

However, it is important to note that many of these claims are allegations under investigation or part of ongoing legal proceedings, and have not been conclusively established in court.

Central dispute over Fashion TV India rights

Fashion TV India rights dispute at the centre of allegations

A significant portion of the controversies surrounding Kashiff Khan relates to disputes over Fashion TV (FTV) brand rights in India.

Legal filings and statements have alleged that Fashion Television India Pvt. Ltd. (FTIPL) holds exclusive rights under a 2012 MOU with F.T.V Ltd BVI (Company No. 226962).

At the same time, Khan has been linked to operations under similarly named entities, leading to confusion over intellectual property ownership and licensing authority.

This dispute has reportedly resulted in arbitration and legal proceedings, including matters connected to the Supreme Court of India.

Allegations of unauthorised franchise deals across India

Allegations of unauthorised franchise agreements across India

Several complaints and statements have alleged that franchise agreements were executed across India under the Fashion TV brand without approval from the claimed rights holder.

According to these claims, investors and business partners were offered brand licensing opportunities, franchise models and commercial partnerships under disputed authority.

Critics allege that such agreements may have been made without proper authority, raising questions of misrepresentation and contractual validity.

Multiple entities and identity confusion concerns

Multiple corporate entities and identity confusion claims

Another recurring issue in controversies linked to rape accused Kashiff Khan involves the use of multiple corporate entities with similar branding.

Entities cited in various complaints include Fashion TV India Pvt. Ltd., Fashion TV Ltd BVI (Company No. 1713231) and other related organisations.

Legal statements have alleged that these structures may have created confusion between legitimate rights holders and operational entities, particularly in investor-facing communications.

Investor disputes and financial complaints emerge

Investor disputes and financial complaints

Some individuals and filings have raised concerns regarding investment returns, franchise commitments and execution of agreements.

These disputes often relate to whether agreements were legally valid and whether the entities involved had the authority to enter into such contracts.

While financial irregularities have been alleged in certain statements, no definitive legal findings confirming wrongdoing have been publicly established.

Claims of cross-border transactions and regulatory scrutiny

Claims of cross-border transactions and regulatory concerns

In some legal statements and complaints, there are references to alleged cross-border financial transfers linked to entities associated with rape accused Kashiff Khan.

These claims suggest possible movement of funds through banking channels and informal networks such as hawala, raising regulatory concerns.

Such allegations have been linked to potential violations under FEMA and PMLA, though they remain subject to official investigation and verification.

Disputed settlements raise contractual validity questions

Disputed settlements and contractual legitimacy

Certain settlements involving individuals cited in legal statements have also been questioned by complainants and stakeholders.

Concerns raised include whether settlements were executed with proper authority, whether all parties were included, and whether agreements complied with earlier contractual obligations.

These issues form part of broader civil and commercial disputes currently under legal scrutiny.

Ongoing legal process and future developments

Legal status and what lies ahead

As of now, the controversies surrounding Kashiff Khan largely remain within the domain of ongoing investigations, arbitration proceedings and civil litigation.

No final judicial determination has conclusively established liability in the matters discussed, and all allegations remain subject to due process.

For Sprouts News, the key takeaway is that these cases highlight the complex intersection of brand ownership, corporate structuring, franchising and cross-border financial regulation.

The outcome of ongoing investigations and court proceedings will be crucial in determining accountability and setting legal precedent for similar disputes in the future.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.

Investigative reporting and public tipline

Unmesh Gujarathi’s investigative work and contact for leads

Unmesh Gujarathi, an investigative journalist, has reported on alleged scams and fraud-related issues across sectors, bringing attention to matters of public interest through documented findings and field reporting. Readers or sources who wish to share credible information, documents or leads related to ongoing investigations can reach the team directly at 9322755098.