3 Land Deals, 3 Disclosure Styles: What Investors Were — and Weren’t — Told
Ramco Cements Ltd has recorded an exceptional income in the third quarter (Q3) of FY25-26 of ₹505.62 crore, representing the profit on the sale of land.  
 
The company has been informing the public, since November 2024, of its intent to generate around ₹1,000 crore from the disposal of non-core assets. Though the company communicated its plan to raise cash by disposing of non-core assets, it never listed out these specifically. 
 
It made a public disclosure on 22nd December in the following fashion- “We wish to inform you that, today (22.12.2025) we have sold non-core assets for Rs514.90 crore, to M/s. Prestige Estates Projects Limited.”
 
 
The annexure to the said communication mentioned ‘An Absolute sale deed had been entered between the Company and Prestige Estates Projects Limited. The deed had been executed for the sale of land owned by the Company’.
 
Obviously, the company cannot sell anything other than what it owns! But that fact alone doesn’t help the public to know which land was sold. To identify that missing information, it was required to check the public disclosure made by the buyer!
 
As Prestige Estates Projects Ltd happens to be a listed entity that makes disclosure of all lands it purchases for real estate development, it could be found out that the land sold by Ramco is a parcel of 25 acres in Madipakkam, Chennai. 
 
Interestingly, the buyer did not disclose the identity of the seller, though they do it in other cases of land purchase! 
 
Since this is a case of disclosure of material information under Regulation 30 of the LODR (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements), the issues for consideration are-
 
First, the quality of the disclosure made, without the details of the land sold, requires one to hunt for the said information in other public sources.
 
The second, whether a land sale of this value and size would have directly come to a sale deed stage, without a prior stage of an agreement being made. 
 
Thirdly, when the company decided to monetise the non-core assets, was it not concurrently necessary to move those assets to ‘assets held for sale’ as required under the IndAS?
 
On the first point, it is difficult to argue that the spirit of the regulation is met by a disclosure that requires a reader to look for additional information from other sources. 
 
On the second, only the company can clarify if the decision to sell the land was taken by the board of directors on 22nd December and it was also completed on the said date! 
 
If the transaction was preceded by other processes that commenced earlier, then the disclosure should have been made on the earliest of the dates when the board took the decision and not wait till the final sale deed is registered. 
 
The third point is best answered by audit experts! 
 
There are two other instances of the sale of land by two large Chennai companies that merit being covered in this article.
 
On 11 April 2025, the board of Rane (Madras) Ltd decided to seek the approval of its shareholders to monetise its land parcels in- 
 
i. Velachery, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 
 
ii. Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore, Karnataka, 
 
iii. Athipattu Village, Ambattur, Chennai; and 
 
iv. Santhegoundanpalayam Village, Pollachi, Tamil Nadu.
 
On the same day, the postal ballot process was initiated to seek shareholder approval.
 
Once that process was completed, on 17 June 2025, the company intimated the stock exchanges that the board had given in principle approval for the sale of 3.48 acres of land at Velachery in Chennai.
 
It should be noted that the disclosure was made even when the terms were not finalised but only the potential buyer had been identified. 
 
On 27th June, the company intimated the signing of the agreement (incidentally, with the same party, Prestige Estates, through a JV—joint venture) for ₹361.18 crore and that the transaction would be completed by 30 September 2026.
 
This is the lifecycle of a real estate deal, which is multi-stage. It is never the case that a deal directly enters the sale deed stage. 
 
After this, the company has been reporting in its quarterly accounts the progress in terms of additional advance monies received.
 
It has also moved the asset to ‘asset held for sale’ during this financial year. 
 
The third in the fray is Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
 
On 8 January 2026, the company intimated the conclusion of an agreement to sell a land parcel of 16.381 acres for a consideration of ₹535.67crore. 
 
Prestige Estates figures for the third time—a rare hat-trick in real estate history!
 
Under this agreement, the buyer paid an advance of ₹25 crore and a commitment to complete the transaction on or before 11 February 2026. (Strangely, today is 12th February, and no sign of a completed sale or any update on the matter!)
 
Sundaram Clayton did not inform the stock exchanges in the first instance when the board would have given the in-principle approval to scout for buyers or engage in serious discussions with Prestige. 
 
It is very unlikely that Prestige Estates suddenly materialised on the scene and agreed to buy, paying an advance.
 
Those with a penchant for real estate business may compare the three different deals that happened within a short time, all within Chennai, though in different micro markets and decide which one was the smartest of all!  
 
However, the purpose of this article was to show how the three identical transactions, incidentally all Chennai-based and to the same buyer, elicited different disclosures by companies that are all equally well-stocked with independent directors and experts advising them!
 
When the AI (artificial intelligence) tool was asked to suggest a fitting closing comment, it came up with the image of a podium finish in a contest!                  
 
(Ranganathan V is a CA and CS. He has over 45 years of experience in the corporate sector and in consultancy. For 17 years, he worked as Director and Partner in Ernst & Young LLP and three years as a senior advisor post-retirement, handling the task of building the Chennai and Hyderabad practice of E&Y in tax and regulatory space. Currently, he serves as an independent director on the board of four companies.)
Comments
kcganga2108
3 weeks ago
Considering that the buyer in all three cases is a common entity, one is left wondering if the idea of limited disclosures was to avoid any competing bidder emerging if the advance information is put out to shareholders/ stock exchanges as statutory disclosures. A good analysis of an unusual chain of events which otherwise would have gone unnoticed.
Kamal Garg
Replied to kcganga2108 comment 3 weeks ago
Unusual and unnecessary digging of intent and action by a company while still disclosing when it becomes 'material' to disclose. Like this, a company would keep on evaluating many proposals for investment/divestment in its normal course of business, it is not required nor it is right also to disclose each and every baby step unless there is a concrete and final step which is required to disclose.
rr_ram_2000
3 weeks ago
Excellent dissection!
Business This Week
Moneylife Digital Team 13 February 2026
The ministry of steel signed memoranda of understanding (MoU) with 55 companies on 9th February, committing ₹11,887 crore to increase specialty steel capacity by 8.7MT (million tonnes) as part of the third round of the...
Madras High Court Directs CBI to Probe Corruption Complaint against Neyveli Lignite Officials
SN Thyagarajan (Bar  and  Bench) 12 February 2026
The Madras High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an enquiry into allegations of large-scale corruption in the projects of Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Limited (NLC), a public sector...
US–Bangladesh Trade Deal Hits India through Strategic Cotton Clause
Moneylife Digital Team 10 February 2026
On 9 February 2026, US trade representative Jamieson Greer and Bangladesh commerce advisor Sheikh Bashir Uddin signed an agreement on reciprocal trade in Dhaka — a deal that cuts the headline tariff on Bangladeshi goods entering the...
Adani Enterprises Discloses US OFAC Information Request Tied to Iran Sanctions Review
Moneylife Digital Team 10 February 2026
Adani Enterprises has disclosed that it has received a formal information request from the US office of foreign assets control (OFAC), the US treasury’s sanctions enforcement arm, as part of a civil investigation linked to...
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback