Adverse Possession of the DHFL by Mr. Ajay Piramal

Posted on 02/06/2023 (GMT 16:52 hrs)

Updated on 9th July, 2025 (GMT 18:51 hrs)

VIEW THE VIDEO AS FOLLOWS:

NEWS TRANSCRIPT

Dear Friends,

None has noticed a crucial factor in the context of the DHFL scam: the possession of the DHFL by Mr. Ajay Piramal.

On the basis of which verdict did Piramal occupy or acquire such a company?

Is it on the basis of the NCLT’s verdict on the 7th of June, 2021? But NCLT is the lowest quasi-judicial body? How can Piramal forcefully take hold of the profitable concern without moving through the legal trajectory gradually by crossing the hierarchical gatekeepers one by one? Is this not a case of adverse possession since the DHFL case is still under adjudication in the court of law?

Furthermore, the NCLT’s first verdict on 19^th May, 2021, for reconsidering the ex-promoters’ rights was not heeded at all by the DHFL-CoC and by Piramal. He rushed off to the NCLAT without answering the NCLT to get the previous order revoked within a few days. Is this not clearly a contempt of court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act? It is to be noted that Mr. Piramal is a habitual appellant for stay orders. Not only did he bring a stay order on the NCLAT’s verdict in the Supreme Court of India on the 11th of April, 2022; but even earlier, he was able to bring a stay order on the charges made by the SEBI on Mr. Piramal for violating the Insider Trading Regulations in 2016. Maybe he is suffering from some form of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder⤡! His schizophrenic self also works when he uses dubious names for the same company: Piramal CHFL and/or Piramal Finance simultaneously⤡!

Ajay Piramal, an alleged insider trader, must be brought under the Tort Law to provide compensation to the victims of financial abuse due to this adverse, forceful acquisition of the DHFL by ignoring the legal sanctions. He also violated the international business related human rights following the United Nations Guiding Principles that provide “Access to Remedy” for the victims of such infringement of financial rights. The RBI-appointed CoC for the DHFL also ignored the Section 66 of the IBC, which provides for the benefit of all the creditors of a bankrupt company, as pointed out by the NCLAT on 27^th January, 2022. The NCLAT also mentioned that the Resolution Process projecting Piramal as the successful bidder is full of irregularities and illegalities.

Piramal has been able to achieve this much solely because of political aid and political protection from the present crony ruling party of India that actively helps Adani, Ambani and their family members like Piramal.

Therefore, the DHFL victims hereby attest the disputed fact of ownership of the DHFL by Piramal.

https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/once-in-a-blue-moon-acade/embed/episodes/Adverse-Possession-of-the-DHFL-by-Mr–Ajay-Piramal-e29fms6

Corporate Adverse Possession: A Moral Trespass on Justice

Legally speaking, calling Mr. Ajay Piramal an “adverse possessor” in the context of the DHFL takeover is metaphorical and not strictly accurate under property law. Under Indian law—specifically the Limitation Act, 1963—adverse possession refers to a person occupying someone else’s immovable property (typically land) without permission, openly and continuously for 12 years or more, and eventually claiming ownership. It is a concept firmly rooted in real property law, not applicable to financial or corporate domains in a strict legal sense.

However, when deployed rhetorically, the term “adverse possessor” takes on a powerful political and moral resonance—especially in the case of the Piramal Group’s acquisition of DHFL. This was a corporate action undertaken even as thousands of small depositors—many of them senior citizens—awaited judicial redress for their lost savings. The takeover proceeded despite unresolved legal and regulatory concerns, and culminated in a Supreme Court verdict that failed to uphold the depositors’ rights, effectively rendering them invisible in the final outcome.

In this sense, Mr. Piramal became the possessor of a financial estate still under contest. The acquisition, though procedurally legal, occurred amidst systemic opacity, regulatory abdication, and the silencing of affected stakeholders. It mimics the mechanics of traditional adverse possession: occupying what is not rightfully yours, sustained by the neglect or delay of those who are.

Thus, “corporate adverse possession” emerges as a fitting moral critique—a way to frame the hostile occupation of a once publicly trusted institution. It signals not a legal transgression, but a moral trespass, where procedural correctness is weaponized to dispossess the vulnerable, undermining the very spirit of justice.