The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered an FIR against Zee founder and Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra, several companies and their directors in connection with an alleged Rs 1,322 crore fraud involving LIC Housing Finance Ltd (LICHFL). The case relates to allegations that inflated net-worth certificates were used to secure loan facilities which later turned into defaults.
The FIR was registered by the CBI’s Banking Securities Fraud Branch on August 31 following a complaint lodged by LICHFL general manager Neeta Menghani. The housing finance company has alleged a wrongful loss of more than Rs 1,322 crore, apart from interest and associated charges, in connection with two loan facilities granted in 2018.
Companies and Directors Named
Besides Subhash Chandra, the FIR names Vasant Sagar Properties Pvt Ltd and its director Pankaj Suroliya, Pan India Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd and its director Amish Pandya, Spirit Infra Power and Multi Ventures Pvt Ltd, and its director Rajeev Dholakia.
The case also includes unknown public servants and other unidentified persons. The CBI is likely to examine the loan sanction process, the alleged financial representations made before LICHFL, utilisation of the funds and the role of each entity named in the complaint.
It is important to note that the FIR records allegations made by the complainant and initiates a criminal investigation. The allegations are yet to be established before a court of law.
Two Loan Facilities Under Scanner
According to the complaint, LIC Housing Finance had sanctioned a Rs 500 crore loan facility to Vasant Sagar Properties Pvt Ltd and Pan India Infra Projects Pvt Ltd. It also sanctioned another loan facility of Rs 480 crore to Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd and Spirit Infra Power and Multi Ventures Pvt Ltd.
The combined loan facilities totalled Rs 980 crore. Both facilities were allegedly secured through letters of continuing guarantee executed by Subhash Chandra.
The first personal guarantee was reportedly executed on March 28, 2018, while the second guarantee was executed on August 10, 2018. LICHFL has alleged that the loans were approved after Chandra submitted documents stating a substantially high personal net worth.
Net Worth Certificates in Focus
In relation to the Vasant Sagar loan facility, the complaint refers to a net-worth certificate dated March 28, 2018. The certificate allegedly showed Chandra’s net worth at USD 6,197.62 million, described as approximately Rs 59,113.21 crore as of March 31, 2017.
For the second loan facility, another net-worth certificate dated July 6, 2018 allegedly put his net worth at Rs 40,562 crore.
LICHFL has alleged that during later proceedings relating to Chandra’s personal insolvency resolution, he denied having the net worth reflected in the certificates submitted to the lender. According to the complaint, Chandra stated that his net worth in 2024 was Rs 31.79 crore and that he did not have a net worth above Rs 40,000 crore even during the 2017-18 period.
Defaults and Alleged Loss
The complaint states that both loan facilities subsequently went into default. In the Vasant Sagar loan account, the outstanding amount was stated to be Rs 570.50 crore. In the Digital Subscriber loan account, the outstanding amount was reported at Rs 507.25 crore.
LIC Housing Finance has pegged its alleged wrongful loss at more than Rs 1,322 crore, including interest and other charges. The lender has accused Chandra and the borrowing entities of acting in collusion to induce it to sanction the loans on the basis of allegedly inflated and false net-worth documents.
The complaint further alleges misappropriation and misapplication of funds. It has also alleged that assets linked to the personal guarantor were stripped in a manner that could obstruct recovery proceedings.
What Happens Next
The CBI will now investigate the authenticity of the net-worth certificates, the role of company directors, possible involvement of public servants, movement of loan funds and whether there was any attempt to conceal or divert assets.
The case has drawn attention because it involves large corporate loans, personal guarantees and allegations of inaccurate financial disclosures. Any further action against the accused will depend on the evidence collected by the CBI during its investigation and subsequent legal proceedings.
