Sorry is Not Enough: Inside the 11th September Call Between OBMA and Piramal Finance

Posted on 11th September, 2025 (GMT 07:00 hrs)

ABSTRACT

On 11 September 2025, a phone conversation between Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay (OBMA) and Mr. Jitendra Wagh (Piramal Finance Ltd.) laid bare the unresolved moral and legal contradictions of the DHFL resolution. While Wagh reiterated corporate apologies and deferred responsibility to court rulings, Bandyopadhyay challenged the moral legitimacy of Ajay Piramal’s acquisitions—juxtaposing philanthropy, political donations, and lavish displays of wealth against the dispossession of DHFL victims. The dialogue exposed how legal frameworks and symbolic appropriations of Gandhi, Tagore, and the Gita serve to shield systemic financial abuse and crony capitalism under the BJP regime. By forcing Piramal Finance into reluctant acknowledgment, OBMA pierced corporate silence, reframing the DHFL struggle as a broader reckoning with India’s oligarchic order.

On 11 September 2025 (11:28 am IST, 05:58 pm GMT), a conversation unfolded between Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay, founder of the OBMA (Once in a Blue Moon Academia), and Mr. Jitendra Wagh⤡ (Cell No: +912269181156), Senior Manager at the Nodal Office of Piramal Finance Ltd. (reportedly unlisted company!) The exchange brought to light not only the unresolved questions surrounding the DHFL resolution but also the deeper contradictions of India’s crony capitalist regime.

Mr. Wagh began by stating that Ajay Piramal was not liable to repay the remaining expropriated amounts owed to DHFL victims, as a “court order” had cleared him of such responsibility. When pressed by Dr. Bandyopadhyay as to which specific order he was referring—the NCLT ruling of 19 May 2021 or the NCLAT ruling of 27 January 2022 (more reflections on these two pertinent orders to follow soon)—Mr. Wagh offered little clarity. Both these orders, after all, had raised significant concerns about irregularities and illegalities in the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the bypassing of Wadhawan’s full repayment proposal, and lapses in auditing and credit ratings. Dr. Bandyopadhyay further pointed out that Mr. Piramal is solely depending on the lowest quasi-judicial body NCLT’s 7th June, 2021 verdict! How can this alone provide the ultimate ground to render absolute entitlement?

Faced with this critique, Mr. Wagh’s response was a mix of empathy and deflection: “I can understand your state, and we are sorry,” he repeated, while advising that the matter be pursued through litigation.

How can a self-proclaimed Vaisnava like Mr. Piramal allegedly perpetrate acts so violently at odds with the faith he claims to uphold?

But Dr. Bandyopadhyay pressed further: Why can Mr. Piramal not repay the victims when he can afford to channel funds through Electoral Bonds (85 crores), donate to PM CARES (25 crores as declared), or absorb scandals like the Flashnet scam? Why the ostentatious display of wealth at his son’s wedding while lakhs of DHFL depositors remain defrauded? The question was not simply financial but moral—does privilege render him “more equal than others” (Orwell!)? Can he present himself as a paramavaisnava while practicing what Dr. Bandyopadhyay called “cannibalistic, savage capitalism”?

This appeal to conscience extended to Piramal’s own symbolic affiliations: the invocation of Gandhi’s name through the Gandhi Foundation under the Piramal conglomerate, the use of Tagore’s song as his company’s anthem, and the frequent references to the Bhagavad Gita. Are these genuine values, or mere co-optations designed to mask the free flow of private capital that undermines constitutional commitments like the Right to Livelihood?

One of the most searing questions Dr. Bandyopadhyay raised was: How could ₹45,000 crores worth of assets be equated with a single rupee? Such an arrangement, he argued, amounted to “financial abuse” under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, particularly its Access to Remedy framework.

How can a supposed Vaisnava like Mr. Piramal allegedly enact violence so starkly opposed to the teachings he professes?

Mr. Wagh assured that he would communicate these concerns to the Piramal administration. Yet the conversation revealed another layer of corporate restructuring: while PCHFL (Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.) had ceased to exist as a standalone entity, Piramal’s presence continued through Piramal Finance Ltd., now a subsidiary of Piramal Enterprises Limited (PEL). Were Mr. Piramal’s mergers, de-mergers, and re-structurings designed to distance himself from legal accountability?

Dr. Bandyopadhyay closed by stressing that OBMA’s struggle was not a matter of personal vendetta or character assassination of Mr. Piramal. The fight, he clarified, was directed against the structural nexus of crony capitalism and political power under the BJP regime—a system that safeguards a privileged 2% while leaving the other 98% to bear the costs of financial expropriation.

This exchange, though polite on the surface, revealed the profound fault lines of India’s ongoing financial and moral crisis: the erosion of accountability, the hollowing out of legal remedies, and the co-option of ethical and cultural symbols in the service of private capital.

In fact, OBMA’s intervention has already succeeded in piercing the veil of corporate silence. By directly confronting Piramal Finance at its own nodal office (given that Piramal’s administration took the initiative of calling us!), Dr. Bandyopadhyay forced the company to publicly acknowledge the unresolved moral and legal stakes of the DHFL fiasco—something no official communication had done until now. The very act of extracting an admission, however evasive, that “the matter must go to litigation” proves that OBMA’s relentless questioning has unsettled the comfort zone of corporate impunity. In a polity where regulators, courts, and media houses often operate as echo chambers for oligarchic interests, OBMA’s voice has struck at the heart of the contradiction: exposing how the language of legality is deployed to shield the unlawful, and how philanthropy is staged to obscure systemic plunder. By hitting this bull’s eye, OBMA has turned the DHFL struggle into a larger reckoning with India’s crony-capitalist architecture itself—an agenda that can no longer be wished away by polite apologies or ritualized deflections.

How can a self-styled Vaisnava like Mr. Piramal allegedly commit acts so brutal, betraying the very dharma he claims to follow?

The Nodal Office of Mr. Piramal also served us with an email following this phone call, the screenshot of which is given as follows:

This reply, as one can clearly observe, exemplifies a careful disregard for certain judicial pronouncements. As noted even earlier during the phone conversation itself, it blatantly ignores the NCLT verdict of 19/05/2021, which directed a full reconsideration of the old promoters’ proposal—dismissed outright by Mr. Piramal and the CoC without answering the NCLT. Was this not a possible/potential contempt of court? It equally overlooks the NCLAT verdict of 27/01/2022, which categorically noted that the resolution process and plan were riddled with irregularities and illegalities. This, too, was bypassed wherein Mr. Piramal got a “stay order” (ex parte) on this verdict from the Supreme Court within a month (March-April 2022).

Moreover, the reply fails to establish any legitimate entitlement of Mr. Piramal over the expropriated assets—assets that represent the hard-earned savings of lakhs of ordinary people. Instead, it reinforces the perception of opportunistic acquisition under the cover of legality, while justice and equity stand disregarded.

We repeat, is Mr. Piramal more equal than others?

Summary of Allegedly Unequal Treatment

Date	Event	Inference
19 May 2021	NCLT orders reconsideration of Wadhawan’s 100% offer	A legally binding directive allegedly ignored
25 May 2021	NCLAT stays NCLT’s order in 6 days	Unprecedented rarest of the rare judicial speed despite huge backlog.
7 June 2021	NCLT approves Mr. Piramal’s plan	Previous order allegedly ignored/bypassed., purportedly violating maximization principle.
27 Jan 2022	NCLAT calls the DHFL resolution plan and process to be discriminatory, illegal, full of material irregularities on the basis of 63 Moons’ arguments	CoC allegedly found to have acted illegally
1 March 2022	Supreme Court stays NCLAT order	Yet again, rapid relief for Mr. Piramal–Privileged access to judicial bandwidth?

Comparative Table: Ajay Piramal Case vs. General Judicial Reality

Date	Ajay Piramal / DHFL Case Event	Inference / Disparity Noted	Contrast with Common Citizens
19 May 2021	NCLT orders reconsideration of Wadhawan’s 100% offer	Legally binding directive allegedly ignored	Common litigants wait years for basic orders to be enforced
25 May 2021	NCLAT stays NCLT’s order within 6 days	Unprecedented judicial speed—possibly influenced by corporate privilege	Over 52 million cases pending; 173,000+ stuck for 30+ years
7 June 2021	NCLT approves Mr. Piramal’s plan ignoring earlier directive	Earlier order bypassed, supposedly undermining IBC’s core tenet of value maximization	Common undertrials routinely denied procedural fairness, spend years in jail without trial or verdict
27 Jan 2022	NCLAT finds many aspects of the plan and process contrary to law	CoC’s conduct deemed illegal; process credibility questioned	Citizens languish for decades for such findings; legal recourse for exploited depositors slow and erratic
1 Mar 2022	Supreme Court stays NCLAT order in < 5 weeks	Yet again, lightning relief for Piramal—indicative of privileged access to apex court	76% of Indian prisoners are undertrials, many jailed for 2–5 years without even a first hearing
2022–2025	Multiple depositors’ cases delayed, dismissed, or redirected on technicalities	Victim-citizens face procedural wrangling and forum shopping	Even SC registry rejections routinely happen for public interest cases, while corporate appeals sail through swiftly

Mr. Ajay Piramal epitomizes a cannibal capitalist, cloaking himself in the guise of a pretended non-violent Vaiṣṇava dharma—a card he cynically plays as his unique selling point. This crony capitalist, allegedly backed by the BJP, has been complicit in multiple misdeeds. His most opportunistic maneuver was grabbing the once-profitable DHFL for a token price of merely one rupee. Now, with brazen excuses, he seeks to extinguish the rights of DHFL’s FD and NCD holders altogether.

Mr. Jitendra Wagh, representing the Piramal administration, has bluntly refused to honour the repayment of the full amount. What, then, does Mr. Piramal intend to do with such corruption at his doorstep? In an India where vote chori has become routine and corruption is effectively legitimized, Mr. Piramal seems to have conveniently forgotten his promise of paying 10% extra to FD holders. What can one say about the arrogance of such a business tycoon, who thrives on betrayal under the guise of piety?

OBMA shall not rest until justice true to its name is ensured for all the DHFL victims.

The said call was deliberately not recorded by us because, under telecom rules, the other party would have heard the notification ‘this call is being recorded,’ which might have prompted him to hang up or shift the conversation into a safer zone.

UPDATE (11/09/2025):

Dr. Bandyopadhyay, representing OBMA and all the suffering DHFL victims (usual disclaimers apply), issued the following written response to the Nodal Office of Mr. Piramal:

To

The Nodal Office,

“Piramal Finance Limited” (a.k.a. Piramal Finance and Corporation Limited / Piramal Enterprises Limited)

My Dear Friends,

We acknowledge receipt of your communication and reference the phone call from your office on 11th September 2025. In response, we reiterate and clarify the two statements we have publicly disseminated as a consequence of that call:

1.    Sorry is Not Enough: Inside the 11th September Call Between OBMA and Piramal Finance VIEW HERE ⤡

2.    Ajay Piramal Exposed: DHFL, Crony Capitalism & Piramal Pharma Boycott (DIGITAL POSTERS) VIEW HERE ⤡

These statements assert our defence of free speech and uphold our claim to justice, grounded in the Indian Constitution—specifically the rights to life, personal liberty, and livelihood—as well as the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGP) on Business and Human Rights under OHCHR, which safeguard against financial abuse.

We emphasise that our actions are not driven by personal animus or vendetta against Mr. Ajay Piramal. As victims of the DHFL financial crisis, we aim to expose the systemic suffering caused by alleged crony capitalist collusion, which appears structurally embedded in the current Indian political economy under the BJP-led regime. These public statements are intended to highlight accountability, transparency, and the grave human cost borne by ordinary investors whose livelihoods were destroyed.

We appeal directly to Mr. Piramal’s projected “vaisnava” conscience—if any (genuinely) remains—to confront the human consequences of these corporate actions in the context of the DHFL scam in particular. Legal compliance alone cannot absolve one of responsibility; morality and public duty demand acknowledgment of the suffering inflicted upon the victims of DHFL’s collapse. The moral and social responsibility inherent in positions of immense influence must guide reflection, restitution, and corrective action.

We remind your office that these communications represent legitimate civic concern, public interest, and a principled pursuit of justice. Any engagement or resolution should respect constitutional and human rights frameworks, and must not seek to suppress lawful expression or silence dissent.

We urge Mr. Piramal—and all associated parties—to recognize that justice is not only measured in legal terms but also in the conscience of those whose actions have tangible consequences for human lives.

Hypothetically yours,

Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay

On Behalf of all the DHFL FD and NCD Holders (Usual Disclaimers Apply)

As voiced through Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA) ⤡

बहुजनहिताय बहुजनसुखाय च॥

(“For the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many”)