Sammaan Capital says open to probe after SC questions agencies, SEBI’s lenient approach in earlier probe

Sammaan Capital, formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance, is a publicly traded company with no defaults, no outstanding dues and no ongoing investigations or proceedings before any regulatory or enforcement agency, says Mukul Rohatgi | Photo credit: DHIRAJ SINGH

“We have no objection to this process. Since there is no allegation from any authority against Sammaan Capital, we are completely open to any investigation that the agencies might want to conduct – once, twice or even thrice. We have nothing to hide,” said Mukul Rohatgi, senior lawyer and counsel of Sammaan Capital.

According to one PTI In the report, the Supreme Court of India has questioned the “reluctance” of the CBI and SEBI to investigate allegations of “questionable transactions” against Sammaan Capital. It directed the agency director to hold a meeting with SEBI, SFIO and ED to look into the matter. The bench was headed by CJI Surya Kant.

The court said that during the meeting to be held by the CBI director, closure of cases against Sammaan Capital by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs will not be an impediment and all allegations leveled by the NGO ‘Citizens Whistle Blower Forum’, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, will be investigated.

Rohatgi said Sammaan Capital is a listed company with no defaults, no outstanding dues and no ongoing investigations or proceedings before any regulatory or enforcement agency, including SEBI, RBI, Ministry of Corporate Affairs or CBI.

This position was also previously submitted to the Supreme Court, says Rohatgi, where all supervisors had already provided clarity. “The present petition before the Supreme Court does not contain any allegation against Sammaan Capital. The Court has referred to the concerns raised about the previous promoter, Sameer Gehlaut, who today has no shareholding or involvement in the company. The Court has clarified in its order that it has not commented on the merits of these allegations and has only allowed the authorities to re-investigate the matter,” he said.

The SC order jeopardizes the proposed $1 billion investment in the NBFC by Abu Dhabi’s International Holding Company. The order “creates a significant regulatory overhang that could temporarily depress valuation, increase compliance costs and slow business expansion, impacting IHC’s expected returns and timelines on its ₹8,850 crore investment,” said Akshat Khetan, founder of AU Corporate Advisory and Legal Services.

However, he added: “Because the investigation focuses on historical issues related to former promoters and not the new IHC-led structure, the impact has more to do with short-term uncertainty and market sentiment (as evidenced by the 13 to 14% share decline) than an immediate threat to the investment itself. This means that if investigations are concluded without significant findings, IHC could ultimately benefit from gaining control at a time when sentiment is weak.”

The company said: “The new promoter IHC is fully aware of the matter and the proceedings and has confirmed to SCL that today’s developments would have no impact on the proposed transaction.”

But a “new investor who will acquire 60 percent will be concerned about any liabilities,” said Shriram Subramanian, founder and MD of InGovern Research Services, adding that the transaction could be delayed. He said SEBI may also defer the approval process for an open offer until the investigation is completed.

“IHC will have to treat this as a potential ‘material adverse event’, pause aggressive integration plans, reopen the valuation logic and insist on rock-solid indemnities and walk-away rights before closing the business,” said Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner, KS Legal & Associates.

Published on November 19, 2025