Claims Of Rs 2983 Crores Against ADAG Companies Settled For Rs 26 Crores In IBC Proceedings : Supreme Court Notes From ED Report

Debby Jain

23 March 2026 4:21 PM IST

  • Claims Of Rs 2983 Crores Against ADAG Companies Settled For Rs 26 Crores In IBC Proceedings : Supreme Court Notes From ED Report

    The Court asked the CBI and ED to join hands and unearth the illegalities

    Listen to this Article

    The Supreme Court on Monday noted from a report of the Enforcement Directorate that debts worth Rs 2983 crores of certain companies of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) were settled in insolvency proceedings for merely Rs 26 crores. All these acquisitions were facilitated by 8 Non-Banking Finance Companies through "Project Help", the Court noted.

    A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a plea seeking an investigation into the alleged loan fraud of over Rs 40,000 crores by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies. Earlier, deprecating the "unexplained delay" on the part of agencies in investigating the matter, the Court had asked the ED and CBI to expeditiously probe the matter.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court today that a Special Investigation Team comprising ED officers has been constituted and the probe is ongoing.

    When the bench emphasised the importance of a fair, dispassionate and timebound investigation in the matter, the SG said that the same would be endeavored to be completed in 4 weeks.

    Besides the SG, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi (for Anil Ambani) and Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioner EAS Sarma) appeared.

    During today's hearing, the bench noted from the ED's affidavit that an SIT has been constituted comprising an Additional Director, 2 Deputy Directors, and 4 Assistant Directors/Investigating Officers of ED. Further, some forensic analysts and 2 staff members of the Bank of Baroda have also been taken as part of the SIT. Investigation into 8 cases has commenced.

    It was also observed that claims of about Rs.2983 crores were extinguished for a total settlement of Rs.26 crores. "It is pointed out that investigations/enquiries into 8 cases have commenced and some documents have been seized. It is not necessary for us to refer to the nature of documents said to have been seized. There is a reference to PROJECT HELP, which is said to have revealed how insolvency petitions were deliberately initiated through unrelated lenders. According to the report, all funding by IBC acquisitions were arranged through a group of 8 NBFCs. On illustrative basis, it is pointed out that claims approx. Rs.2983 crores were extinguished for a total settlement of Rs.26 crores", the order observed.

    In a previous hearing, Bhushan had told the Court that Reliance Communications was sold the brother's company at just 1% of the dues. In that context, CJI had remarked that the IBC was being misused like anything by undervaluing the company's assets and selling them off to proxy parties.

    From the CBI's affidavit, the Court found that 7 cases are under investigation, in which the roles of public servants are also being looked into.

    In this backdrop, the bench stated in its order,

    "This is a case where senior functionaries of the investigating agencies must join hands and make vigorous attempts to unearth the irregularities/illegalities or the connivance of public functionaries, specially the financial institutions, if any, in giving undue benefit to the [...]. While we do not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations, all that we wish to observe is that it is imperative upon the CBI and the ED to complete the investigation in a most dispassionate, fair, transparent and independent manner and take the ongoing investigations to logical conclusion in a timebound manner."

    It further recorded, "Learned SG assures that no stone shall be left unturned to unearth the truth and that endeavor shall be made to complete investigation in 4 weeks".

    The bench further ordered all banks and agencies to cooperate with the investigation, by giving the necessary information to the ED.

    "All concerned agencies/financial institutions/other persons are directed to extend full cooperation to ED and make available necessary information. In the event of any reluctance, resistance or delay, ED to submit a report to this Court."

    Rohatgi, on behalf of Ambani, urged that a representation has been made to the Banks to see if any resolution can be found, but the Banks are hesitant to have a dialogue due to the pendency of the case. "Let the Banks have a dialogue with me" he said.

    In response, the CJI said, "We have not stopped anyone. And Banks will open...they will happily enter into...because that's another way for them to wriggle out of the consequences. If any."

    SG Mehta also informed that the CBI has constituted 3 transaction auditors to audit the transactions, and properties worth Rs.15000 crores have been attached.

    Bhushan, on the other hand, claimed that there had not been any substantial arrests in the matter despite a SEBI report noting that there was a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Anil Ambani and administered by key managerial personnel of RHFL to siphon off public funds by structuring them as loans. "CBI has not affected any arrested so far", he said.

    Countering the averment, the SG said that 4 arrests have been made so far. "We cannot arrest randomly. it has to go investigation-wise", he said.

    At this point, Bhushan alleged that only some lowly officials have been arrested, not the main person. The SG however disagreed. The CJI, on his part, added, "we may not say who should and should not be arrested".

    At the same time, the CJI deprecated the manner in which the investigating agencies acted. "The way investigating agencies have shown reluctance, that's not acceptable. They should come out in a fair, transparent and timebound manner that this is what we have concluded after investigation. Investigation must inspire confidence - not only of the court but of all stakeholders", the CJI said.

    Case Title: EAS Sarma v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025

    Next Story