1 hr ago
Tribunal Removes Former PNB Executive From Nirav Modi Case
A tribunal was looking at a large bank fraud case involving Nirav Modi and the Gitanjali Group.
Sanjiv Sharan was a senior Punjab National Bank official when the alleged fraud happened.
The government had included him in the case because his name appeared in a CBI chargesheet.
Sharan said he worked at the bank’s New Delhi head office, not at the branch where the transactions occurred.
The tribunal said it did not see evidence that he knowingly helped or allowed the fraud.
It therefore removed him from the company case.
It also released the property attachment that applied to him.
The tribunal said this decision could change if stronger evidence is later presented.
The NCLT Mumbai removed former Punjab National Bank executive director Sanjiv Sharan from the company petition linked to the alleged Nirav Modi–Gitanjali Group fraud.
The tribunal said no material showed Sharan was directly or indirectly complicit in the alleged fraud or responsible for the Brady House transactions.
The Union of India opposed his removal, relying on his inclusion in a Central Bureau of Investigation chargesheet.
The NCLT vacated the January 31, 2019, attachment of Sharan’s properties insofar as it applied to him.
The tribunal clarified that its decision was not a conclusive finding if further evidence is presented before another authority, forum, or court.
- Who
- The National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai, former Punjab National Bank executive director Sanjiv Sharan, and the Union of India were central to the proceeding; the wider case concerns the Nirav Modi–Gitanjali Group.
- What
- The NCLT removed Sharan from the company petition and vacated the attachment of his properties insofar as it applied to him.
- Where
- The proceeding was before the NCLT Mumbai and concerned events involving Punjab National Bank’s Brady House branch and head office in New Delhi.
- When
- The order was issued on September 24, 2026; the property attachment had been ordered on January 31, 2019.
- Why
- The tribunal found no material before it demonstrating Sharan’s direct or indirect complicity in the alleged fraud, although it left open the possibility of further findings if new evidence emerges.
NCLT’s Finding
Union of India’s Position
Whether Sharan should remain a respondent
NCLT’s Finding
The tribunal held that no evidence before it showed Sharan knowingly participated in, facilitated, or assisted the alleged fraud. It therefore deleted him from the company petition.
Union of India’s Position
The Union opposed his deletion and justified his impleadment based on his name appearing in the CBI chargesheet.
Sharan’s connection to the alleged misconduct
NCLT’s Finding
The tribunal noted that Sharan was posted at the PNB head office in New Delhi and found no material showing he was responsible for the Brady House foreign-exchange transactions or SWIFT-to-CBS integration.
Union of India’s Position
The Union relied on SFIO material alleging failures related to SWIFT-log generation and reconciliation with CBS data.
Effect of the ruling
NCLT’s Finding
The tribunal vacated the property attachment applicable to Sharan but said its observations were not a conclusive determination of his role if further evidence emerges.
Union of India’s Position
The Union maintained that his inclusion in the investigative case justified continuing his status as a respondent.
Key facts
- Tribunal
- National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai
- Applicant
- Sanjiv Sharan, former Punjab National Bank executive director
- Alleged fraud amount
- Rs 11,400 crore
- Entities investigated
- 107 companies and seven LLPs
- Property attachment
- Vacated for Sharan insofar as it applied to him
- Government position
- The Union of India opposed deletion, relying on Sharan’s inclusion in a CBI chargesheet
- Decision date
- September 24, 2026
Quotes
NCLT Mumbai
The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal
“It is clarified that our observation in relation to conduct of the applicant are solely based on the material before us, and should not be taken as conclusive finding on the role of the applicant in the alleged fraud, if such role is otherwise proved on the basis of further material brought on record before any authority or forum or court.”
freepressjournal.in
“In the present case also, the Applicant is Executive Director of PNB sitting at Head Office Delhi and no evidence has been placed on record demonstrating even the indirect complicity of the applicant in the perpetration of fraud.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Bank Clerk Faces Trial After Assets Found 577% Disproportionate
NCLT Seeks CBI Response In Subhash Chandra Insolvency Case
Mumbai EOW Registers Forgery Case Against Businessman, Four Others
How Chandra’s ₹6.5 Crore Repayment Plan Survived NCLT Scrutiny
ED Raids Mumbai, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in ₹135-Crore Fraud Case
CBI Chargesheets 17 More in Reliance Finance Case
Mehul Choksi Lawyer Vijay Aggarwal Denied Bail in UK
Mehul Choksi Fugitive Economic Offender Hearing Delayed Again
Mehul Choksi Lawyer Faces UK Rape Allegation, Trial Set
Mehul Choksi's Lawyer Vijay Aggarwal Faces Multi-Agency UK Probe
