The FashionTV fraud case has taken a new turn after allegations that individuals linked to the case sent defamation notices to media houses reporting on the investigation. Authorities continue to probe the multi-crore franchise fraud, while claims of pressure on journalists have raised concerns about media freedom and transparency. Questions have also emerged regarding company records, identity representations, and official designations cited in the notice. As investigations proceed, the situation highlights the importance of verifying corporate claims and ensuring that reporting on ongoing cases remains protected under legal and constitutional safeguards.
Contents
- FashionTV Fraud Case Latest Update: Arrested Gang Allegedly Threatens Media from Jail, Sends ‘Defamation Notice’ to Silence Journalists
- Here is a Line-by-Line Examination of the Claims in the Notice:
- Claim No. 1 — Company Name Discrepancy
- Claim No. 2 — Managing Director Designation
- Claim No. 3 — Address Mentioned in Letterhead
- Claim No. 4 — Website Representation
- Claim No. 5 — Identity Details
- Claim No. 6 — Role of Krishna Shah
- Claim No. 7 — Role of Naveen Ahuja
- Claim No. 8 — Delay in Investigation
- Claim No. 9 — Brand Ownership Representation
- Claim No. 10 — Absence of Advocate Details
- Key Question: Ongoing Communication from Custody?
FashionTV Fraud Case Latest Update: Arrested Gang Allegedly Threatens Media from Jail, Sends ‘Defamation Notice’ to Silence Journalists
Mumbai’s FashionTV fraud case escalates as an arrested group allegedly sends a defamation notice to media houses. The notice’s claims are disputed, raising questions over company records, roles, and ongoing communication, while the investigation continues under legal scrutiny.
“A proclaimed offender since 2023, accused of forging signatures and never being a company director, is now threatening journalists with criminal prosecution for reporting facts.”
Just days after being arrested by Gorakhpur Police for a multi-crore franchise fraud, the FashionTV fraud syndicate has launched an audacious counterattack — not in court, but against the media.
A so-called “legal notice” dated 04.04.2026 has been sent to six media houses, including Sprouts News, Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Jagran News, Aaj Ki Khabar News, and SR Samachar India, threatening them with criminal defamation proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for reporting the arrests.
The notice, reproduced in full with this report for public scrutiny, is itself a masterclass in alleged deception — containing the same misleading claims, questionable identities, and deliberately confusing entity names that this group has allegedly used for years.
Reports have also been received that phone calls are being made to journalists and editors, pressuring them to remove their stories. The group, even while its key members are in custody, is allegedly attempting to silence voices reporting on the case.
Related News: FashionTV Franchise Scam Busted, Three Arrested.
Here is a Line-by-Line Examination of the Claims in the Notice:
Claim No. 1 — Company Name Discrepancy
The notice is issued on behalf of “Fashion TV India Limited.” However, records indicate that the registered entity with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is “Fashion TV India Private Limited” (CIN: U92490MH2019PTC335250).
The omission of “Private” appears consistently throughout the seven-page notice. This distinction is significant, as searches under the incorrect name may not yield official records, while the correct name reflects different listed directors.
This raises questions about potential confusion between similarly named entities, including “Fashion Television India Private Limited” (FTIPL), which is a separate company.
To view sushil waghmare authority letter to FashionTV – Click here
To view the affidavit statement of claim against FashionTV – Click here
To view the Defamation Notice – Click here
Claim No. 2 — Managing Director Designation
The notice states that Kashiff Khan is the Managing Director of the company.
Under the Companies Act, 2013, a Managing Director must first be a formally appointed director. Available records reportedly do not reflect such an appointment for Kashiff Khan in the referenced company.
Statements from an authorised representative of FTIPL, recorded under Section 161 BNSS, reportedly indicate that no authority or permission was granted to him by their organisation.
Claim No. 3 — Address Mentioned in Letterhead
The notice lists the address as Level 7, The Capital, BKC, Mumbai.
However, reports suggest that operational activities linked to the case were conducted from a Santacruz location, raising questions about the use of a premium business address versus actual operational premises.
Claim No. 4 — Website Representation
The notice prominently displays www.fashiontv.com, which is the global website of the international FashionTV brand.
Concerns have been raised regarding whether the Indian entity has authorisation to use this domain, as well as the authenticity of certain online representations linked to it.
Claim No. 5 — Identity Details
The notice refers to “Kashif Khan,” while documents reportedly indicate a longer full name.
Experts note that discrepancies in identity details can complicate legal and investigative processes, particularly in matters involving travel records and official documentation.
Claim No. 6 — Role of Krishna Shah
The notice describes Krishna as a salaried Sales Head with limited responsibilities.
However, reported communications suggest a more involved operational role, including interactions with clients, handling documents, and coordination in internal groups.
Claim No. 7 — Role of Naveen Ahuja
The notice presents Naveen Ahuja as handling routine administrative functions.
Investigative inputs, including digital communication records, reportedly indicate involvement in financial discussions and operational decision-making beyond routine tasks.
Claim No. 8 — Delay in Investigation
The notice questions a delay in arrests following the FIR.
Sources indicate that the initial Investigating Officer was replaced after concerns were raised, following which the investigation progressed and arrests were carried out.
Claim No. 9 — Brand Ownership Representation
The notice describes the entity as a globally recognised brand.
However, it is reported that rights to operate FashionTV in India are held by Fashion Television India Pvt. Ltd. (FTIPL), and disputes regarding usage and authorisation are currently under legal examination.
Claim No. 10 — Absence of Advocate Details
The notice is issued by a “Legal Department” without mentioning an advocate’s name, Bar Council registration, or contact details.
Typically, formal legal notices include verifiable credentials, raising questions about the document’s origin and accountability.
Key Question: Ongoing Communication from Custody?
With the key accused reportedly in custody since 1 January 2026, questions have emerged regarding how such notices are being issued and who is coordinating communication externally.
Authorities may examine whether any procedural or legal violations have occurred in this context.
Appeal from Affected Individuals
Individuals linked to the case have urged media organisations not to be intimidated and to continue reporting verified facts responsibly.
They emphasise that the FIR, arrests, and supporting evidence are part of an ongoing legal process subject to judicial scrutiny.
Documents Referenced
The following documents are cited in relation to the case:
- Copy of the notice dated 04.04.2026
- MCA records regarding company directorship
- Communication records referenced in the investigation
- Legal status documents under the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Statements recorded under BNSS provisions
Investigative Team and Contact Details
Unmesh Gujarathi, an investigative journalist associated with Sprouts News, has been actively involved in uncovering major financial irregularities and complex fraud cases. For further information, leads, or verification, his team can be contacted at 9322755098.
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.
