SecureKloud defaults on ₹3.14 crore of interest owed to promoter R S Ramani — about 5.5% of its market cap
The Oct 1 filing flags possible legal action by the lender — who is the promoter himself. Market cap ≈ ₹56.6 Cr; the stock closed at ₹16.95, roughly half its 52-week high.
MICRO-CAP
by market cap ≈ ₹56.6 Cr
₹3.14 Cr
INR 3,14,26,183, due Oct 1
₹16.95
Oct 1, before the filing
−50.4%
adjusted high ₹34.18 (Nov 24, 2025)
₹1.68 Cr
consolidated, revenue ₹13.51 Cr
43.35%
as of Jun 30, 2026
After market close on October 1, SecureKloud Technologies told the BSE it had defaulted on an interest payment of INR 3,14,26,183 — ₹3.14 crore — on a loan taken from its own promoter, Mr. R S Ramani. For a company whose entire market capitalisation is about ₹56.6 crore (3.34 crore shares at the ₹16.95 close), the unpaid interest alone equals roughly 5.5% of what the market says the whole company is worth. The filing names the estimated impact on the company plainly: a possible legal action by the lender.
A default disclosure, in the company's own words
Default on interest payable to the promoter, disclosed under SEBI LODR Schedule III
SecureKloud filed an initial disclosure of default under Regulation 30 of SEBI (LODR) read with Para A, sub-paragraph 6 of Schedule III. Nature of default: the company has defaulted in the repayment of interest on a loan availed from the promoter. Amount involved: interest of INR 3,14,26,183 (₹3.14 crore). Person involved: Mr. R S Ramani, Promoter. Time of occurrence: October 1, 2026. On whether the default has been reported to appropriate authorities, the filing states: not applicable.
Read:The filing itself lists the estimated impact on the listed entity as a possible legal action by the lender/promoter. The disclosure does not state the loan's principal amount, its terms, or the period over which the unpaid interest accrued. It reached the exchange at 21:32 IST — after the close — so the first session in which the market could react is October 2, beyond the price data in this report.
BSE filing, Oct 1, 2026 — Default disclosure under Schedule IIITwo details are worth sitting with. First, the creditor is not a bank or an NBFC — it is the promoter, which makes this an unusually public airing of a dispute, or at least a shortfall, inside the promoter group's own house. Second, this is labelled an initial disclosure, which leaves open the possibility of further filings on the same default. The company's Q1 FY27 consolidated interest expense was ₹0.39 crore — at that run rate, ₹3.14 crore is roughly two years of interest, though FY26 quarters carried higher interest expense (₹1.1–2.0 crore a quarter), under which the same amount would represent well under a year; the filing does not state the accrual period or the principal, so the exact span of accumulation remains an inference.
The same promoter is already facing a SEBI recovery order
SEBI Recovery Officer's prohibitory order over promoters' unpaid penalty dues
On August 7 the company disclosed that it had received information regarding a Prohibitory Order dated August 3, 2026, issued by the Recovery Officer, SEBI, in connection with the default in payment of penalty dues by the promoters of the company. The filing names two persons: Mr. Suresh Venkatachari (Promoter/Director) and Mr. R S Ramani (Promoter).
Read:The same Mr. R S Ramani to whom the company now owes ₹3.14 crore of interest was, two months earlier, named in a SEBI recovery proceeding over his own unpaid penalty dues. The two filings describe separate obligations — the promoters' dues to SEBI, and the company's dues to a promoter — but together they show financial stress on both sides of the promoter-company relationship.
BSE filing, Aug 7, 2026 — SEBI prohibitory order disclosureFive consecutive consolidated loss quarters
Q1 FY26 includes an exceptional item of −₹139.49 Cr; excluding it, the pre-tax loss was ₹0.63 Cr. Source: exchange filings.
The default did not arrive out of a clear sky. SecureKloud has reported a consolidated net loss in each of the last five quarters — ₹140.13 crore in Q1 FY26 (of which ₹139.49 crore was an exceptional item), ₹15.32 crore in Q2, ₹2.14 crore in Q3, ₹7.20 crore in Q4, and ₹1.68 crore in Q1 FY27. Revenue has also compressed sharply, from ₹35.96 crore in Q4 FY25 to ₹13.51 crore in the latest quarter. On a standalone basis — the listed entity itself, where the promoter loan would sit — Q1 FY27 showed revenue of ₹5.73 crore against a net loss of ₹2.94 crore. A company losing money at that scale and size has limited internal room to service ₹3.14 crore of accrued interest, which is the simplest reading of how a payment due to the promoter came to be missed.
The tape shows a slow grind rather than a crisis print: from ₹18.64 in early July to ₹16.95 on October 1. The pack's 52-week adjusted low of ₹15.6 is dated September 11, but that session's adjusted close was actually ₹16.70 — the lowest close in the recent run — so the ₹15.6 figure reflects a different (intraday) reading for that date, not the closing tape shown here. At the last close the stock sits 50.4% below its 52-week adjusted high of ₹34.18 (November 24, 2025). None of this yet prices the default — the market gets its first look on October 2. One more small data point: the promoter holding slipped from 43.52% (1,45,39,703 shares) as of March 31, 2026 to 43.35% (1,44,82,872 shares) as of June 30 — a reduction of 56,831 shares; the filing does not state a reason for the change.
The filings that would change this picture
Follow-up default disclosures
The Oct 1 filing is labelled an initial disclosure. Subsequent filings may reveal the loan principal, the accrual period, or whether the interest is paid, waived, or restructured.
Legal action by the lender
The company itself flags possible legal action by the promoter-lender as the estimated impact. Any such action would come with its own Regulation 30 disclosure.
Q2 FY27 results
The trading window closed on October 1 and stays shut until 48 hours after the September-quarter results are declared; the board meeting date is yet to be intimated. The standalone balance sheet commentary, if any, may show how the promoter loan is classified.
SEBI recovery proceedings
The August prohibitory order against promoters Suresh Venkatachari and R S Ramani over penalty dues remains a live, separate thread; further orders or communications would also be disclosable.
What makes this filing notable is not the absolute amount — ₹3.14 crore is small in market terms — but the relationships it exposes. A listed company has told the exchange it cannot, or did not, pay interest to its own promoter, and that the promoter may respond with legal action; that same promoter was named two months earlier in a SEBI recovery order over his own unpaid penalty dues. Both filings describe obligations in default on each side of the promoter-company boundary.
For holders, the near-term questions are factual rather than interpretive: how large is the loan behind the ₹3.14 crore of interest, how long has it gone unserviced, and does the lender act on the legal option the company itself flagged. The initial disclosure answers none of these; the follow-up filings and the Q2 FY27 results are where those answers would appear.
Informational and educational content only. Not investment advice.