Top News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the CBI to independently examine allegations of financial irregularities against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd and its associated entities, including transactions earlier examined by the Delhi Police Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The Court said the CBI would not be guided by the EOW's conclusions while examining the allegations.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the directions while hearing a PIL filed by Citizens Whistleblower Forum, which has alleged suspicious loan transactions, diversion of funds, manipulation of share prices and evergreening of loans involving Indiabulls-linked entities.

Arguments and Allegations in Court

The direction came after the petitioner questioned the EOW's decision not to proceed further on five of the transactions. The Court noted that the EOW had already examined those allegations and had opined that further investigation was not advisable.

Since the petitioner was challenging the EOW's conclusions and seeking an independent investigation, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to examine the allegations irrespective of the EOW's report.

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that an RBI circular requires bank frauds involving amounts above ₹50 crore to be investigated by the CBI. He argued that the material referred to in the ED complaint disclosed prima facie allegations of fraud, criminal conspiracy, diversion of funds and evergreening involving public money.

"The EOW is not the competent authority to investigate such bank-fraud allegations," Bhushan submitted. He argued that the CBI had not investigated the five allegations because the EOW was already looking into them. According to Bhushan, the petitioner wanted one competent agency to independently examine the allegations instead of relying on the EOW's conclusions.

Details of Alleged Transactions

One of the allegations relates to loans of nearly ₹1,693 crore advanced to entities of the Americorp Group. Bhushan submitted that the loan funds were allegedly routed back into shares of Indiabulls-linked entities, generating profits through manipulation of share-price movements. He also referred to the ED's findings concerning alleged diversion of funds and suspicious transactions linked to the Palais Royale project.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the EOW had already examined the transactions and found no irregularity. "The EOW says it has examined these transactions and found no irregularity," Justice Bagchi observed. Bhushan responded that this was the EOW's position and could not substitute an independent CBI investigation. He submitted that the CBI had not itself examined the five allegations.

The respondents disputed the allegations and submitted that there was no bank fraud as the loans had been repaid. It was also argued that no bank had alleged any default or loss and that evergreening, by itself, did not amount to a criminal offence.

Justice Bagchi questioned the respondents' position on evergreening after referring to the affidavit filed by the ED. "I have looked at the ED affidavit. You are now qualifying what constitutes evergreening," Justice Bagchi said.

Supreme Court's Directives to CBI and Trial Court

The CBI told the Court that the ED complaint contained six allegations. Five had already been examined by the EOW, while the sixth involved a transaction of approximately ₹1,574 crore. The CBI said it had filed a chargesheet in relation to the sixth allegation and therefore required permission from the Special Judge, PMLA, Mumbai, to carry out further investigation.

Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the CBI on the need to seek permission from the trial court. The CBI counsel explained that its application for further investigation into the ₹1,574-crore transaction was already pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Mumbai. The agency also referred to its status report setting out coordination between the CBI, EOW, SEBI and RBI.

The Supreme Court directed the Special Judge, PMLA, Mumbai to decide the CBI's application within two weeks from August 24, 2026. The CBI has thereafter been directed to file a progress/status report before the Supreme Court.

In relation to the other allegations, the Court directed the CBI to conduct an independent inquiry irrespective of the EOW's opinion or report and submit a comprehensive report. The Court also directed the Delhi Police EOW to complete its pending investigation concerning the sixth transaction involving approximately ₹1,574 crore and file a fresh status report.

The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the EOW report, which had given a clean chit in respect of certain transactions.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for former Indiabulls promoter Sameer Gehlaut, reiterated his earlier submissions that no dues remained payable by Indiabulls. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Sammaan Capital, the company formerly known as Indiabulls Housing Finance.

Background of the Case

The case arises from a long-running PIL filed by Citizens Whistleblower Forum. In November 2025, the Supreme Court had directed senior officers of the CBI, ED, SFIO and SEBI to jointly look into allegations concerning five borrower groups which had allegedly received loans from Indiabulls Housing Finance between 2014 and 2017.

The petitioner has alleged that the loans involved diversion of funds and other financial irregularities. It has also alleged that erstwhile promoter Sameer Gehlaut left the country for London and acquired assets including five-star hotels, aircraft and yachts.

The plea contends that the shareholding of public shareholders was effectively transferred to Gehlaut and that a detailed investigation was therefore necessary. The Supreme Court will consider the matter further after receiving the fresh reports from the CBI and EOW.

(ANI)