Суд отказал ЦБИ в допуске к новому расследованию по делу о мошенничестве в Yes Bank с участием Indiabulls

Regulatory 4 min read Yes Bank fraud: CBI denied nod for further probe on Indiabulls Housing MUMBAI: A special court on Monday rejected CBI’s request for permission to conduct further investigation into the alleged role of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd and IVL Finance Ltd in the Rs 4,733-crore Yes Bank-DHFL loan fraud case, holding that the agency had not placed material to warrant a fresh probe. The judge also pointed out that CBI had submitted before Supreme Court that there was no direct allegation of diversion or siphoning of funds by Indiabulls or its earlier promoters. The special court had earlier declined to take cognisance against Indiabulls and IVL Finance Ltd while dealing with the fourth supplementary chargesheet. CBI challenged that order before Bombay HC, where it is still pending. Advt CBI had moved a plea for further investigation and declaring as redundant an intervention plea filed by Dhani Loans and Services Ltd, formerly IVL Finance Ltd. Rana Kapoor, then MD and CEO of Yes Bank, is accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and siphoning off Rs 4,733 crore. The initial complaint was filed against DHFL (Dewan Housing Finance Ltd) and 11 others. CBI filed the first chargesheet on June 25, 2020. Supplementary chargesheets followed in July 2021, June 2022 and July 2022, adding several accused persons. The fourth supplementary charge sheet was filed on Oct 24, 2024, when CBI named Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd and IVL Finance Ltd among the accused. According to CBI, its further probe into diversion of funds showed that Yes Bank’s exposure to entities linked to developer Sanjay Chhabaria came under scrutiny after an RBI audit in Jan 2017. It alleged that loans sanctioned by Indiabulls were used to help close or adjust Yes Bank’s loan exposure, and that Rs 19.3 crore was diverted to IVL Finance, described as a sister concern of Indiabulls. CBI then sought permission for further investigation following proceedings in Supreme Court in a public interest matter concerning alleged transactions involving Indiabulls, its promoters and several corporate groups. Advt The agency said material later examined showed that Yes Bank had granted loans to companies allegedly connected with the Indiabulls group, including loans of Rs 290 crore each to Tupelo Constructions Pvt Ltd and Tupelo Land Development Pvt Ltd, Rs 85 crore to Paidia Connection Pvt Ltd, Rs 1,000 crore to IVL Finance in one financial year, and Rs 1,100 crore in the next. CBI said in court further investigation was required to examine alleged quid pro quo arrangements between Yes Bank and Indiabulls. It said facts later collected were not known when the fourth supplementary chargesheet was filed. Dhani Loans and Services Ltd sought permission to intervene, saying the proposed further investigation would affect the company because it had stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile IVL Finance. It argued that since cognisance had not been taken against the erstwhile company, further investigation could not be permitted without sufficient basis. Opposing Dhani’s intervention, CBI said an accused or a proposed accused has no right to be heard at the stage of further investigation. It said the investigation was at an initial stage and further material was required to bring relevant facts before the court. The court accepted that an accused need not always be heard before further investigation is allowed, but held that the prosecution must still show material justifying such a step. The judge noted that CBI’s own affidavit before SC had taken a contrary stand. The court also relied on CBI’s statement in the same affidavit that “there is no loss of any public money by the alleged acts of M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd”. The order noted that CBI had stated there was no prima facie criminal act disclosed from the material available. “Thus, it is to be stated here that when the prosecution has itself affirmed through an affidavit that there are no direct allegations with regard to diversion or siphoning of funds by the M/s Indiabulls or its promoters and there is no loss of any public money, there cannot be any further investigation in the said matter in regards to M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd or M/s IVL Finance Ltd,” the judge said. Since further investigation was refused, the court held that Dhani’s intervention application did not survive and became redundant. By , TNN Published On Sep 9, 2026 at 09:45 AM IST