NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has expressed concerns over the CBI and SEBI’s “reluctance” to investigate allegations of questionable transactions involving Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IHFL), now rebranded as Sammaan Capital Limited. The court ordered the CBI director to convene a meeting with SEBI, SFIO, and ED to address the matter.
A bench including Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh criticized the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) for its handling of multiple offenses committed by IHFL, citing “double standards” in SEBI’s regulatory actions.
The court questioned the delay in filing a First Information Report (FIR) and emphasized that the closure of cases by the MCA should not hinder the investigation of allegations raised by the NGO ‘Citizens Whistle Blower Forum,’ represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The court requested the Delhi Commissioner of Police to provide original documentation regarding complaints made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning IHFL and the rationale behind the Economic Offence Wing’s (EOW) refusal to investigate. A senior EOW official is required to be present with all relevant records at the next hearing scheduled for December 17.
During proceedings, Chief Justice Designate Justice Kant remarked on the CBI’s unusually passive approach, stating, “We have never seen such a friendly attitude in this case.” He noted the significant public interest involved, saying, “This is public money, not private wealth being circulated.”
The bench stressed that even a fraction of the allegations warrant an FIR to empower ED, SFIO, and SEBI. Justice Kant questioned the MCA’s interest in closing the matter and the authorities’ hesitance to act.
Bhushan alleged significant irregularities within Indiabulls, claiming the company and its previous promoters funneled dubious loans to entities owned by major corporate groups, which allegedly returned money to Indiabulls’ promoters for personal gain.
Bhushan further alleged that former promoter Sameer Gehlaut fled to London, where he is purportedly purchasing luxury items. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi countered that Gehlaut exited the company in 2022-23 and no longer holds shares, with the company now known as Sammaan Capital, which has foreign investments.
Mukul Rohatgi, representing the company, dismissed the allegations made by Bhushan. The bench clarified it had not assessed the merits of the claims but merely called for investigative collaboration among agencies.
When the court order was read, a counsel for SEBI expressed hesitance to investigate, citing jurisdictional limitations. Justice Kant rebutted, highlighting SEBI’s selective jurisdiction claims and demanding accountability from the agency’s officers.
The bench instructed the CBI director to prepare an affidavit detailing the discussions upcoming with other agencies. On October 8, the court had requested MCA to present original records regarding SEBI’s observations on IHFL’s operations.
The company has denied the allegations, asserting that various regulators and investigative agencies, including RBI, MCA, SEBI, ED, CBI, and EOW, found no evidence to substantiate the claims. On July 30, the CBI informed the court it had not unearthed any irregularities in IHFL’s loan disbursement activities.
The NGO is contesting a February 2, 2024, high court ruling that declined to mandate an investigation.
