SC gives CBI a week to decide on criminal case against Indiabulls promoters

The Supreme Court has directed the CBI to decide within a week whether to register a criminal case over allegations involving former promoters of Indiabulls Housing Finance, now Sammaan Capital

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to decide within a week whether a formal criminal case should be registered in connection with allegations involving the former promoters of Sammaan Capital, formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

 

What directions did the Supreme Court issue to the CBI? 

To facilitate the exercise, the court asked the agency to call for records from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and listed the matter for further hearing in the second week of January 2026.

 

Meanwhile, the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police registered a fresh FIR in the same matter on Wednesday, December 17, according to media reports.

   

Why is the case back before the Supreme Court? 

On November 19, the court had come down heavily on Sebi, the CBI and the MCA for what it described as a “passive approach” in probing allegations against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd, which has since been renamed Sammaan Capital.

 

The case arises from a petition filed by the Citizens Whistle Blower Forum, a non-governmental organisation, seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into alleged irregularities committed by the company. The petition alleges that loans were extended by Indiabulls Housing Finance to certain companies that routed funds back to firms promoted by its erstwhile promoter Sameer Gehlaut.

 

What did the court say about Sebi’s role? 

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh had sharply criticised Sebi, flagging what it termed inconsistencies in the regulator’s conduct.

 

“When the question of taking over properties and selling comes, then you say we are the only authority in the country with jurisdiction. But when the question of investigation comes? Because your officers have some vested interest,” Justice Kant had remarked.

 

He also referred to an earlier instance where the apex court constituted a high-powered committee, noting Sebi’s claim that it alone had the authority to auction properties. “Thirty crore worth of property, you have sold in a few lakhs. When courts are instructing, you should perform your statutory duty,” Justice Kant said.

 

What concerns did the bench raise about the CBI and MCA? 

The bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI’s handling of the case. “Very surprisingly, the CBI has a very cool kind of attitude and approach in this case… This is ultimately public money,” Justice Kant observed, questioning why no FIR had been registered despite what it described as potentially dubious transactions.

 

He also questioned the MCA’s role, asking why the ministry appeared keen to close the matter and what interest it had in doing so.

 

How has Sammaan Capital responded to the allegations? 

Responding to the court’s observations, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Sammaan Capital, said the petition did not contain any allegation against the company in its present form.

 

“The court has referred to concerns raised about the previous promoter, Mr Sameer Gehlaut, who has no shareholding or involvement in the company today,” Rohatgi said, adding that the court had clarified it had made no observations on the merits of the allegations.

 

“We have no objection to this process. Since there is no allegation from any authority against Sammaan Capital, we are fully open to any inquiry the agencies may wish to conduct,” he said.

 

What do the allegations in the petition involve? 

The petition before the Supreme Court alleges wide-ranging financial irregularities involving round-tripping of funds, violations of the Companies Act and siphoning of money by promoters of Indiabulls and its subsidiaries. Earlier proceedings had noted that even the CBI’s own filings suggested that money-laundering allegations carried substance, with the ED already examining related transactions. However, the absence of an FIR on the predicate offence has remained a key issue in the case.