Did Cholamandalam Violate RBI Norms?
• Abhayjeet Dubey’s Loan Raises Alarming Questions
• Directors Gift, Bank Approves
• Corporate Gift or Corporate Grift?
Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
In a shocking expose by Sprouts Special Investigation Team Editor-in-Chief Unmesh Gujarathi, Sudhanshu Infrastructure Pvt Ltd is found gifting ₹7.5 crore worth of office spaces to its own directors, who later secured loans from Cholamandalam Bank. This raises serious questions on RBI compliance, corporate gifting ethics, and related-party transactions, indicating deep-rooted loopholes in India’s regulatory framework.
Directors Gift Themselves Properties Worth ₹7.5 Cr
A potential corporate scandal is brewing in Mumbai’s real estate sector. According to documents reviewed by the Sprouts News Investigation Team (SIT), Sudhanshu Infrastructure Pvt Ltd has gifted office properties worth ₹7.5 crore to its own directors — Mr. Abhayjeet Sakalnarayan Dubey and Mrs. Pinky Abhayjeet Dubey — in a manner that raises both legal and ethical concerns.
The properties in question are located in Aniraj Tower, opposite Kaka Petrol Pump, LBS Marg, Bhandup (West), Mumbai – 400078. Specifically:
•Office No. 603 and 607 were gifted to Mrs. Pinky Dubey on 07.05.2025.
•Office No. 604 was gifted to Mr. Abhayjeet Dubey on the same date.
What raises eyebrows further is that these gifted properties were then used as collateral to acquire loans from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd, amounting to a total of ₹7.5 crore — ₹6.5 crore against Pinky Dubey’s offices and ₹1 crore against Abhayjeet Dubey’s.
Click Here To Download the News Attachment
Contents
Did Cholamandalam Violate RBI Norms?• Abhayjeet Dubey’s Loan Raises Alarming Questions• Directors Gift, Bank Approves• Corporate Gift or Corporate Grift?Directors Gift Themselves Properties Worth ₹7.5 CrClick Here To Download the News AttachmentLegal Ambiguity: Can a Pvt Ltd Gift Property to Directors?1. Companies Act, 2013:2. Income Tax Act, 1961:3. Banking and RBI Norms:Was the System Exploited or Compromised?Red Flags Point Toward Coordinated FraudAlso Read: Forensic Report Exposes Deeply Pre‑Planned Ambulance Tender Scam in Maharashtra.Time for RBI, SEBI, and MCA to Step InA Wake-Up Call for Regulatory Reform
Legal Ambiguity: Can a Pvt Ltd Gift Property to Directors?
This controversial gifting arrangement has triggered major questions about the legality under Indian corporate law, income tax rules, and RBI lending norms.
1. Companies Act, 2013:
While there is no express bar under the Companies Act on gifting assets to directors, it does raise serious concerns under Section 188 dealing with related party transactions. Such transactions require Board approval, and in many cases, shareholder approval as well — particularly when such transactions are not in the ordinary course of business or are not at arm’s length.
2. Income Tax Act, 1961:
According to the Income Tax Act, if a director receives property without adequate consideration from a company, the market value of the gift is treated as taxable income under Section 56(2)(x). The company too may be liable for violation of transfer pricing and accounting norms.
3. Banking and RBI Norms:
It remains unclear how Cholamandalam Bank sanctioned such large loans on gifted properties, especially since the acquisition involved no financial transaction from the borrowers. RBI guidelines require thorough due diligence, including clear ownership history, proper consideration value, and valuation norms. The Sprouts News Investigation Team (SIT) is now probing whether any special permissions were granted, or if due diligence was ignored.
Was the System Exploited or Compromised?
The suspicious alignment of events — gifted property, instant loan, and internal corporate connections — has raised strong speculation that this could be a classic case of systemic loophole exploitation or worse, collusion among private parties and financial institutions.
Key questions that demand answers include:
•Did Sudhanshu Infrastructure’s board approve these gifts transparently?
•Were RBI norms violated during the loan disbursement?
•Did Cholamandalam Bank conduct a fair valuation and creditworthiness assessment?
•Have regulators like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and Income Tax Department taken note?
Red Flags Point Toward Coordinated Fraud
While gifting between related parties is not new, leveraging such assets to secure huge loans immediately raises serious suspicion of deliberate financial engineering. If the directors never paid for the assets, and the bank loaned them crores against the same, this potentially turns into a money-laundering or circular financing case.
Moreover, this model can be replicated to siphon funds, using dummy valuations, shell loans, and insider collusion. It also raises systemic risk concerns as banks may end up with non-performing assets (NPAs) due to overvaluation and lack of genuine borrower risk.
Also Read: Forensic Report Exposes Deeply Pre‑Planned Ambulance Tender Scam in Maharashtra.
Time for RBI, SEBI, and MCA to Step In
This case demands an immediate investigation by RBI, SEBI, and MCA, especially given the potential for regulatory arbitrage. If found guilty, all parties involved — including the builder, directors, and the bank officials — could face serious criminal and financial consequences under the Companies Act, Income Tax Act, PMLA, and even banking fraud laws.
The Sprouts News Investigation Team (SIT) has submitted preliminary findings to relevant authorities and will continue to track updates on this unfolding scam.
A Wake-Up Call for Regulatory Reform
The gifting of high-value properties by private companies to directors — followed by the swift disbursal of large bank loans — highlights glaring gaps in regulatory oversight. Whether it’s a crack in the system or a case of conscious manipulation, the outcome is the same: erosion of public trust, risk to financial institutions, and potential loss to the exchequer.
As watchdog agencies and media continue to probe, this case could become a landmark precedent for reforms in related-party transactions, real estate banking, and corporate gifting norms.
