The complaint
The complaint relates to a ₹500-crore facility extended to Vasant Sagar Properties Pvt Ltd, with Pan India Infraprojects Pvt Ltd as co-borrower, and a ₹480-crore facility sanctioned to Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd, with Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Pvt Ltd as co-borrower.
According to the FIR, the ₹500-crore Vasant Sagar loan was sanctioned for takeover, top-up and business expansion and was backed by a continuing guarantee executed by Chandra on March 28, 2018. The ₹480-crore Digital facility was sanctioned under a rental securitisation scheme and was similarly secured by a continuing guarantee from Chandra.
What LICHFL said
LICHFL told investigators that a net worth certificate submitted by Chandra for the Vasant Sagar facility, issued by DIM & Co on March 28, 2018, valued his net worth at around ₹59,000 crore. Another certificate issued by chartered accountants MPJ & Co on July 6, 2018, placed his net worth at ₹40,562 crore and was used partly for sanctioning the Digital facility, the FIR alleged.
The agency’s complaint points to a discrepancy between these figures and statements Chandra made during subsequent insolvency proceedings. In 2024, he pegged his personal net worth at ₹31.79 crore and said his net worth during 2017-18 was no more than ₹40,000 crore.
The FIR alleges that Chandra colluded with the four borrower entities and their officers and directors to induce LICHFL to advance the loans. It further alleges that false documents were created to represent an inflated net worth and that the loan funds were subsequently misappropriated.
ALSO READ: ‘NCLT order rightly stayed’: Subhash Chandra personal guarantee issue back to the drawing board
The CBI complaint comes amid Chandra’s ongoing personal insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Earlier this week, a special five-member NCLT bench stayed approval of a repayment plan after noting that an earlier decision lacked a clear majority. The bench also restrained Chandra from alienating any assets.
The repayment plan had proposed a personal payment of ₹6.25 crore by Chandra as guarantor, alongside ₹1,494 crore to be paid separately by principal borrowing companies. Creditors holding 80.8% of the voting share backed the plan, while LICHFL and several banks opposed it.
LICHFL had argued that against admitted claims of around ₹22,006 crore, the plan offered only ₹6.25 crore to creditors, calling it unviable and unlawful.
