From Courtroom to Newsroom: Tracking the Media Pulse on the DHFL Verdict
From Courtroom to Newsroom: Tracking the Media Pulse on the DHFL Verdict
From Courtroom to Newsroom: Tracking the Media Pulse on the DHFL Verdict

Posted on 10th April, 2025 (GMT 13:14 hrs)
ABSTRACT
The article examines the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Piramal Group’s resolution plan for Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL). This verdict has intensified feelings of despair among the DHFL victims, especially as it allows fraud-recovered funds to benefit the acquirer rather than the original retail investors and small depositors. The piece also highlights the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure of the Yes Bank–DHFL loan fraud case due to insufficient evidence, raising questions about the initial motivations behind DHFL’s corporate insolvency resolution process and the broader implications for India’s financial sector.
It has been roughly ten days since the Supreme Court of India—under the bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi—delivered its disheartening verdict in the DHFL “scam” case. For many victims of the DHFL collapse, the judgment has deepened a prevailing sense of betrayal and disillusionment, further eroding faith in the Indian judiciary under the current saffronized political climate. The decision, which upholds the Piramal Group’s resolution plan and permits the diversion of fraud-recovered funds to the supposed acquirer rather than the original retail investors and small depositors, has sparked widespread frustration and despair.
Yet amidst this judicial bleakness, a few developments offer a faint but meaningful glimmer of hope.
In a related and significant turn, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), along with a special CBI court in Mumbai, has recently concluded its probe into the high-profile Yes Bank–DHFL loan fraud case. This case, once emblematic of systemic rot in India’s financial sector, involved allegations of fraudulent home loan accounts and massive financial misconduct by Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) and its directors, viz., the Wadhawan brothers. As of January 2025, however, the CBI has found insufficient evidence to sustain charges of criminal conspiracy against Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan, resulting in a formal clean chit for the accused in this specific matter.
The closure of this case, particularly the CBI’s conclusion that the evidence failed to establish the requisite intent or coordination for conspiracy, aligns with a broader emerging proposition: that while the initial allegations were thought to be (or, appeared as) grave and worthy of investigation, the legal system has ultimately found them unsustainable under judicial scrutiny.
If no such fund diversion happened (lack of evidence), what prompted the initiation of the DHFL CIRP in the first place? Was it driven solely by political vendetta, or an attempt to legitimize the flawed and incoherent IBC (2016) to protect the BJP’s image? At what cost? Whose misery and suffering were sacrificed in the process? It appears that for over five years, the victims of DHFL have endured suffering for nothing– since there are currently no “criminal conspiracies” against the Wadhawans! What is, after all, the meaning of all this ‘nautanki’?
https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/01/28/the-dhfl-scam-an-absence-that-exists/
https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/03/10/the-great-anachronism-putting-the-cart-before-the-horse-the-dhfl-scam/https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/02/23/the-dhfl-scam-a-simulated-hoax/
https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/02/16/dhfl-scam-circus-the-great-hotchpotch/
For many, particularly those still pursuing justice and transparency in India’s financial sector, the Supreme Court’s decision may seem like a bitter pill to swallow. However, for some—especially among the accused and a significant portion of affected stakeholders—the recent CBI developments in the DHFL case suggest a possible resolution, albeit one that leaves broader questions unresolved. This situation highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of investigative and judicial processes in addressing the intricate issues of corporate fraud, accountability, and recovery.
SOURCE-REPORTS:
CBI closes case against DHFL, its directors in fake home loan accounts case VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 23rd January, 2025 ©The Hindu)
DHFL Home Loan Scam: CBI Appeals To Close Case In Court After Probing For 3 Years VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 23rd January, 2025 ©The Hindu)
CBI gives clean chit to realty firm DHFL in fake home loan accounts case
VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 23rd January, 2025 ©Telangana Today)
Yes Bank-DHFL loan fraud case: CBI court gives clean chit to realtors, sto ck market expert VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 16th March, 2025 ©Free Press Journal)
Lack of evidence: CBI court drops charges against key accused in Yes Bank-DHFL fraud case VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 16th March, 2025
©Hindustan Times)
Now, amid these mostly positive developments, the DHFL victims have received a verdict from the Justice Trivedi bench of the Supreme Court of India. The ruling seems to endorse the allegedly financially abusive resolution plan proposed by Mr. Ajay Piramal and sanctioned by the RBI-appointed CoC. We have detailed this in the following post:
How did some of the most prominent media houses, particularly financial journalists, perceive or respond to this verdict?
Interestingly, they did not straightaway approve the verdict but instead delved deeply into its critical exploration and critique.
Let us take the first one from Moneylife, written by Ranganathan V:
DHFL: Court Misses a Supreme Chance To Rein in Dubious Deals! VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 4th April, 2025 ©Moneylife)
Given below is the brief summary of the said report:
Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) exemplifies a massive case of corporate fraud where the promoters systematically siphoned off public money through dubious transactions, while oversight bodies like auditors, credit rating agencies, the National Housing Bank (NHB), and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) remained passive. Despite DHFL’s vast public exposure—including provident and mutual funds invested in its debentures—the company’s resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was highly contentious.
The Piramal Group acquired DHFL for ₹34,730 crore, despite admitted claims totaling ₹87,248 crore and potential liabilities exceeding ₹1 trillion. The deal included a small upfront payment (of which ₹3,500 crore was already DHFL’s internal cash), and the rest was deferred over ten years at a favorable 6.75% interest rate. Further reducing the real acquisition cost, DHFL had a deferred tax asset of approximately ₹10,000 crore. This effectively brought down the cost of acquisition close to, or even below, the liquidation value of the company.
A critical issue in the resolution plan was the treatment of fraudulent transactions under Section 66 of the IBC. While recoveries from undervalued transactions (under Sections 43 and 45) would go to creditors, recoveries from fraud (Section 66) were earmarked for the corporate debtor—i.e., the acquirer, Piramal. This was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), despite its anomaly and adverse implications for creditor recoveries. Although the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruled that such recoveries should benefit creditors, the Supreme Court overturned this, siding with the NCLT’s approval of the CoC-backed plan.
The Supreme Court justified its decision by citing established precedents that limit judicial interference once a CoC-approved resolution plan is finalized. However, this judgment raises serious concerns. It ignored the commercial irrationality of assigning potential fraud recoveries to the acquirer and overlooked how such deals can weaken the spirit of the IBC. While legally consistent, the court missed an opportunity to question or critique the CoC’s poor commercial judgment, potentially enabling more such controversial resolutions in the future. The case reveals systemic gaps in India’s insolvency resolution framework and underscores the need for stronger safeguards to protect public interest and ensure accountability.
Now let us move on to the second article for consideration from BusinessWorld, written by Palak Shah:
DHFL And Piramal: A Controversial Resolution? VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 3rd April, 2025 ©BW-BusinessWorld)
Given below is the brief summary of the said report:
The Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025 ruling in favor of Piramal Group’s acquisition of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) has sparked serious concerns about the fairness and purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. While the legal process was followed, critics argue it enables corporate profiteering at the expense of public interest, particularly banks and depositors.
Key Issues:
- Massive Discount Acquisition: Piramal acquired DHFL for ₹38,000 crore, despite DHFL owing ₹87,000 crore to creditors. A portfolio of ₹47,000 crore worth of loans was valued at just ₹1, giving Piramal full rights to any future recoveries—essentially setting the stage for large profits.
- IBC Loopholes:
- Asset Undervaluation helped Piramal secure a cheap deal.
- Control over Loan Recoveries ensured future profits go to Piramal, not creditors.
- Opaque Valuation Processes cast doubt on the fairness of the transaction.
- Fast-track NCLT Approval raised concerns of bias toward corporate buyers.
Legal Trajectory:
- NCLT Mumbai approved the deal.
- NCLAT overturned the approval, calling it unfair to creditors.
- Supreme Court reversed NCLAT’s decision, upholding the deal and reinforcing the CoC’s authority.
Concerns Raised:
- Banks and depositors suffer losses while Piramal potentially reaps massive gains from recoveries.
- The judiciary, while legally consistent, appears to have enabled an imbalanced outcome.
- The ruling may set a precedent for corporate entities to strip assets cheaply under IBC, undermining trust in India’s insolvency framework.
Larger Implication:
The DHFL-Piramal case reveals systemic flaws in the IBC process, suggesting it may be evolving into a mechanism for elite asset transfers, weakening the financial sector and eroding public confidence.
Now we shall be moving on towards another report by Zee Business, written by Zee Media Webteam:
Does Supreme Court order on Piramal Capital’s DHFL resolution plan highlight scope for improvement in IBC mechanism? VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 4th April, 2025 ©Zee Business)
Given below is the brief summary of the said report:
On April 1, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld Piramal Capital & Housing Finance’s ₹38,000 crore resolution plan for DHFL, overturning a previous NCLAT ruling that had deemed the plan “illegal”. The Court allowed Piramal to retain full rights over recoveries from ₹47,000 crore worth of allegedly fraudulent loans—valued at just ₹1 during the resolution—raising serious concerns about transparency and fairness in India’s insolvency framework.
Background:
- DHFL, once a major housing finance firm, entered insolvency in November 2019 with debts of nearly ₹88,000 crore.
- In September 2021, the Piramal Group acquired DHFL through the IBC process, creating a new entity called PCHFL.
- The NCLAT had directed creditors to revisit the undervaluation of DHFL’s assets, but the Supreme Court has now set that aside, clearing Piramal’s full control over future recoveries.
Controversy:
- Critics argue that Piramal leveraged IBC provisions to acquire assets cheaply, especially the questionable ₹47,000 crore loan portfolio, raising fears of asset stripping.
- Allegations include asset undervaluation, lack of transparency, and disproportionate gains to the corporate buyer over banks and depositors.
IBC Evolution and Reforms:
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 consolidated India’s fragmented insolvency laws and has seen several major amendments aimed at improving resolution efficiency:
- 2017: Introduced Section 29A (bars wilful defaulters from bidding).
- 2018: Recognized homebuyers as financial creditors; introduced a 330-day resolution deadline.
- 2019: Strengthened operational creditors’ rights.
- 2021: Launched pre-packaged insolvency for MSMEs.
- 2023: Implemented stricter timelines for NCLT approvals; improved distribution clarity and accountability of insolvency professionals.
The Road Ahead:
While the IBC has significantly strengthened India’s banking system and helped recover large sums, legal experts caution that gaps remain—notably in valuation standards, procedural delays, and the risk of misuse by powerful corporate buyers. Calls for simplification, transparency, and stronger safeguards are growing to ensure the IBC remains a tool for genuine business recovery—not just for corporate windfalls.
The DHFL-Piramal case underscores the need to revisit the balance between resolution efficiency and stakeholder fairness within the IBC framework.
##
The aforementioned reports collectively underline several discrepancies in the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the DHFL “scam” cases, which are given as follows:
Corporate Profiteering at Public Expense:
- The resolution plan facilitated a massive acquisition by Piramal at a fraction of the value of DHFL’s liabilities, with the company acquiring assets worth ₹47,000 crore for just ₹1. This raised concerns about the fair treatment of creditors, including banks and depositors, who were left with significant losses.
Undervaluation of Assets:
- The undervaluation of DHFL’s loan portfolio, particularly the ₹47,000 crore worth of loans, casts doubt on the transparency of the resolution process. Piramal gained full control over these loans while paying a fraction of their value, allowing the corporate buyer to profit immensely from future recoveries.
Judicial Oversight and Legal Precedents:
- While the Supreme Court’s decision was legally consistent with previous rulings, it failed to address the fundamental issues of fairness and transparency in the IBC process. The Court’s decision to uphold the resolution plan ignored the commercial irrationality of assigning fraudulent transaction recoveries to the acquirer, rather than creditors.
CoC’s Commercial Judgment and Procedural Flaws:
- The approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) highlights the systemic issues within the IBC framework. The CoC’s poor commercial judgment, which favored corporate buyers over creditors, went unchallenged by the judiciary, despite raising significant concerns about the long-term implications for insolvency resolution in India.
Lack of Accountability in Asset Stripping:
- The case exposes how powerful corporate entities can leverage loopholes within the IBC to strip assets cheaply, thereby profiting at the expense of creditors and the public interest. The legal and procedural gaps in the IBC are evident, and the DHFL-Piramal resolution sets a concerning precedent for future corporate acquisitions under the insolvency framework.
Need for Stronger Safeguards and Reforms:
- The DHFL-Piramal case underscores the urgent need for reform within the IBC to ensure greater transparency, fairness, and accountability in corporate acquisitions. Gaps in asset valuation standards, procedural delays, and a lack of protections for vulnerable stakeholders, including creditors and depositors, must be addressed to restore trust in the system.
Weakening of Public Confidence in IBC:
- The Supreme Court’s decision to side with the CoC and uphold the controversial resolution plan may undermine public trust in the IBC framework. The case suggests that the IBC is evolving into a mechanism that facilitates elite asset transfers rather than promoting genuine business recovery and stakeholder protection.
Call for Improved Stakeholder Balance:
- Experts have called for a reexamination of the balance between resolution efficiency and fairness to all stakeholders within the IBC. Ensuring that corporate buyers do not disproportionately benefit from undervalued assets, while creditors bear the brunt of the financial losses, is crucial for the future integrity of the insolvency process.
These well-established media houses, recognized for their expertise in business and financial reporting, are providing crucial insights and subtle hints about the potential implications of the Supreme Court judgment, suggesting it may be a crony maneuver designed to protect BJP-aligned business moguls at the expense of DHFL victims, i.e., the small depositors. This does illuminate a faint glimmer of hope in an otherwise dismal landscape shaped by the prevailing political-economic climate in India.
Reflect on these reports, share them widely, and don’t allow the deceitful enterprise of the politico-corporate collusion to sow pessimism that leads you to a path of indifferent passivity. Let actions speak louder than words!
Comments
Post a Comment