Legal cloud over Sammaan Capital and Supreme Court’s push for accountability

The case involving Sammaan Capital Limited (SCL), formerly known as Indiabulls Housing Finance, is a long-running legal and corporate saga that touches upon corporate governance, the role of regulators, and the challenges of holding promoters accountable. The recent hearing in the Supreme Court added a significant new layer to this complex story, revealing a stark tension between the company’s narrative of vindication and the judiciary’s frustration with regulatory inertia.

The Origins: A PIL and allegations of impropriety

The story begins in 2019, when the Citizens Whistle Blower Forum (CWBF), represented by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court. The petition alleged serious irregularities in SCL’s lending practices. It claimed that the company had extended large loans to five specific borrower groups in a manner that was not arms-length, suggesting a possible “quid pro quo” that benefited the company’s powerful erstwhile promoter and Executive Chairman, Mr. Sameer Gehlaut.

The PIL sought investigations by a suite of India’s top financial and corporate watchdogs: the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the National Housing Bank (NHB), and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). For SCL, this was a major reputational and legal challenge, casting a shadow over its operations.

Sammaan Capital’s defence

Sammaan Capital’s position, as detailed in its recent stock exchange filing, is built on a foundation of what it calls “clean chits” and concrete business facts.

First, and most critically, the company states that all the regulatory bodies named in the PIL conducted their investigations and found no wrongdoing by the company. These agencies subsequently filed affidavits in the Delhi High Court stating this fact. From SCL’s perspective, the very regulators tasked with overseeing its operations had exonerated it.

Second, and crucial from a financial perspective, the company emphasizes that the contentious loans are no longer on its books. The entire principal and interest from three of the five borrower groups were reportedly repaid as far back as 2019. The outstanding amounts for the remaining two have since been reduced to zero. In essence, SCL argues there is no financial injury to the company or its shareholders from these transactions.

Third, SCL has undertaken a radical transformation to distance itself from its past. Mr. Gehlaut has completely exited the company, selling his entire stake by 2023. The company is now a “promoter-less,” professionally managed entity with over 400,000 shareholders. It has even shed its old identity, selling the “Indiabulls” brand name and rebranding as Sammaan Capital. The company insists it has no dealings with Mr. Gehlaut and that his current whereabouts or assets are not its concern.

Based on these points—the regulatory affidavits and the changed circumstances—the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL in February 2024. For SCL, this was the final word, a comprehensive legal victory.

Supreme Court order and a new complication

The CWBF, unsatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court. This is where the narrative diverges. While SCL’s filing focuses on its exoneration, the Supreme Court hearing on November 19, 2025, revealed a different, more pressing concern: the Court’s profound dissatisfaction with the regulator SEBI.

During the proceedings, the petitioners focused on the alleged actions of the former promoter, Mr. Gehlaut, claiming he had fled to London and acquired lavish assets. The Court’s attention, however, zeroed in on SEBI’s role. Justice Surya Kant’s remarks were unusually sharp and revealing. He accused SEBI of “double standards,” pointing out that the regulator is quick to assert its exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to auctioning properties but becomes “reluctant” when asked to investigate. The Court questioned whether this reluctance stemmed from a “vested interest” among SEBI officers and rhetorically asked, “Why are your officers getting salary if you do not have power?”

This outburst was not a direct condemnation of Sammaan Capital, but it severely undermined the company’s narrative of a clean closure. The Court was effectively saying that the initial investigations, which SCL relies on for its vindication, may not have been sufficiently rigorous or trustworthy.

Also See: ED arrests former Jaypee Group chief Manoj Gaur in money-laundering case