Advertisement
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
The Supreme Court has criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Delhi Police over the lack of progress in investigations into allegations linked to Indiabulls Housing Finance, now known as Sammaan Capital. During a hearing, the court questioned why no First Information Report (FIR) had been registered despite complaints and sought explanations from the investigating agencies. The bench also directed senior officials to place original records before it and stressed that allegations involving public funds warrant a thorough investigation. The matter stems from a petition filed by Citizens Whistle Blower Forum, which has raised concerns over alleged irregular transactions involving the former management of the company.
The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the pace of investigations into allegations involving Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, now renamed Sammaan Capital Limited, questioning the approach adopted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Delhi Police in handling the matter.
During the hearing, the bench observed that despite complaints relating to alleged irregular transactions, no First Information Report (FIR) had been registered. The court questioned what had prevented the investigating agencies from initiating a formal probe, noting that the allegations involved issues of public interest and required appropriate examination.
The matter arises from a petition filed by the non-governmental organisation Citizens Whistle Blower Forum through advocate Prashant Bhushan. The petition alleges questionable financial transactions linked to the company's former management and seeks a comprehensive investigation by central agencies. The Supreme Court observed that even if only a portion of the allegations were found to be correct, the nature of the transactions warranted a detailed inquiry.
The bench directed the CBI Director to convene a meeting involving senior officials from the CBI, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The agencies have been asked to jointly examine all allegations raised in the petition. The court clarified that previous closure of certain matters by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) should not prevent the agencies from independently reviewing the issues placed before them.
The Supreme Court also sought an explanation from the Delhi Police regarding complaints earlier submitted by the Enforcement Directorate to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). It directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to produce the original records relating to those complaints and explain the basis on which no investigation had been initiated. A senior EOW official has been directed to remain present with the relevant records during the next hearing.
During the proceedings, the bench remarked that it was surprised by what it described as the CBI's restrained approach to the matter and observed that cases involving public money require prompt and impartial investigation. It also questioned SEBI's stance, referring to what it described as inconsistent positions regarding its jurisdiction to investigate the allegations.
Responding to the proceedings, Sammaan Capital stated that it is a professionally managed, promoter-less company and that its former promoter, Sameer Gehlaut, exited the business during 2022–23 and no longer holds any shareholding. The company said the allegations had previously been examined by multiple regulatory and investigative authorities, including the Reserve Bank of India, National Housing Bank, MCA, SEBI, ED, CBI and the Economic Offences Wing, and maintained that none had found wrongdoing by the company. It further stated that the Supreme Court had not made any observations on the merits of the allegations and had only permitted authorities to re-examine the matter.
Source - PTI
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
