The DHFL insolvency resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, stands as a stark exemplar of systemic opacity, regulatory evasion, and alleged crony favoritism in India’s financial ecosystem. Initiated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in November 2019 through the supersession of the DHFL Board and referral to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) culminated in the approval of Ajay Piramal’s resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the NCLT (June 2021), and ultimately the Supreme Court (April 1, 2025), which upheld the plan—including the appropriation of avoidance recoveries by the successful resolution applicant—while reaffirming the primacy of the CoC’s “commercial wisdom.” The case has drawn sustained scrutiny from approximately 2.5 lakh retail fixed-deposit and NCD holders, who suffered severe haircuts (recovering around 23% of admitted claims), amid allegations of undervaluation, procedural irregularities, premature occupation by the acquirer, and the dilution of fraud-avoidance mechanisms under Sections 32A and 66 of the IBC. Persistent Right to Information (RTI) applications—filed notably by activists associated with “Once in a Blue Moon Academia”—seeking itemized disclosure of the RBI-appointed CoC’s total expenditures (including professional fees, litigation costs, and deductions from the resolution pool) have been met with uniform institutional denial, with the RBI repeatedly claiming it “has no information” and bears no responsibility to maintain or interpret such records, while the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) have similarly deflected or transferred queries. This refusal to disclose even basic expenditure details—despite the RBI’s direct role in constituting the CoC—fuels concerns about a deliberate “will to hide,” potentially masking inflated costs borne by depositors, quid pro quo arrangements linked to political financing, and preferential treatment for well-connected acquirers. Critics increasingly frame the DHFL case as a “test case” for the IBC regime, wherein small savers became unwitting “guinea pigs” in a system dominated by institutional creditors, marginalizing retail stakeholders and entrenching judicial deference to CoC decisions—even in the face of documented NCLAT findings of irregularities. This analysis argues that the DHFL resolution reveals deeper structural flaws in India’s insolvency framework: the transformation of statutory immunity into structural impunity, the erosion of transparency obligations under the RTI Act, and the prioritization of private gain over public accountability. Absent independent investigation and full disclosure, the episode risks eroding trust in regulatory institutions and reinforcing perceptions of oligarchic capture under the guise of financial reform, making urgent rectification of the persistent opacity surrounding CoC expenditures essential to restoring legitimacy to the IBC process and securing justice for affected depositors.
Category Archives: Activities
Our current activities concentrate on the case of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL), India. While exploring and investigating this particular case, we have found that India’s crony ruling party, gangsters, banksters as well as religious gurus and institutions are involved in the same. Therefore, to break such collusion, we have decided to deploy an “all out attack” on the existing paradigm of neoliberal market economy as well as market fundamentalism. ***DISCLAIMER: We have collected all the data from available sources on the internet as given on the official portals of media houses, websites and institutions and organizations. We are not first-hand reporters and hence, we are not liable for any inadvertent error or value-loaded statements made on those portals. All propositions have to be viewed as descriptive assertions on the given point of concern.***
Expose IBC’s Dirty Secret, Resist the Structural Impunity for Cronies!
This dossier argues that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has evolved from a reform tool into a system of impunity, exemplified by the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd collapse, where depositors suffered massive losses while Section 32A IBC erased corporate liability for the “new owner” Mr. Ajay Piramal; highlighting repeated amendments and creditor dominance, it calls for repeal—especially of Section 32A in relation to its contradictory relationship to Section 66—and urges non-violent resistance inspired by Gandhiji to restore accountability.
Retrospective Truths: Valmiki, Ayodhya, IBC 32A, and the Stake of Constitutional Secularism
This short article explores a striking parallel between poetic creation and state-sanctioned reality-making in contemporary India. Drawing from Rabindranath Tagore’s poetic dialogue with Narada in the context of Valmiki’s Ramayana—where the poet’s imaginative mind-realm is declared Rama’s truer birthplace than historical Ayodhya—the discussion extends to two landmark institutional acts: the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict (with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s later confession of seeking divine guidance) and Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which retrospectively absolves corporate debtors of pre-insolvency offences upon plan approval, as vividly illustrated in the DHFL-Piramal takeover. Both instances represent exercises in retrospective ontological surgery: the poet erases or reconfigures the past through fiction for ecstatic delight (jouissance), while the judiciary and legislature do so through unsigned judgments infused with faith-based inspiration and statutory “clean-slate” mechanisms that shield economic continuity at the expense of accountability. The article argues that such sovereign rewritings—whether sacralising faith in a title suit or engineering corporate rebirth—breach the thick wall of separation between powers, subordinate evidence-based adjudication to revelation or expediency, and inflict profound injury on constitutional secularism. By collapsing the distinction between objective historical/legal truth and creatively decreed higher truth, these developments risk transforming the secular Republic into a palimpsest open to majoritarian or crony capture, where Article 51A(h)’s mandate of scientific temper yields to engineered absolution and divine endorsement. Ultimately, while the poet may harmlessly invent birthplaces, when the State borrows that crown, the stake is nothing less than the integrity of constitutional secularism itself.
The Archaeology of Architecture in the Piramal Archipelago
This article examines the ecological contradictions embedded in contemporary corporate development through a critical analysis of four interconnected cases linked to the activities of the Piramal Group. Situated within the broader environmental context of Mumbai—one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable coastal megacities—the study explores how industrial production, urban real-estate expansion, and superrich architectural consumption intersect with fragile ecosystems and emerging climate risks. The first case investigates allegations of groundwater contamination linked to pharmaceutical manufacturing in Digwal village in Telangana, where proceedings before the National Green Tribunal raised concerns about impacts on aquifers and agricultural landscapes. The second examines controversy surrounding a chemical manufacturing facility in Dahej in Gujarat, where the Gujarat Pollution Control Board ordered a plant shutdown after allegations that hazardous industrial waste had been discharged into a canal connected to the Narmada River system. The analysis then turns to Mumbai’s coastal urban landscape, where luxury developments by Piramal Realty illustrate the commodification of waterfront environments marketed through narratives of sustainability and “biophilic living.” Finally, the study examines the sea-facing residence Gulita as a symbolic expression of wealth concentration along a climate-exposed coastline. Drawing on environmental reports, regulatory proceedings, and urban climate research, the article situates these cases within a broader framework of coastal capitalism and urban ecological transformation, arguing that corporate sustainability narratives often coexist with environmental risks displaced onto rural landscapes, industrial waterways, and vulnerable urban coastlines.
Piramal’s “Green” Smokescreen: Reports and Radical Reflections
In a scathing indictment of 21st-century Indian philanthro-capitalism, billionaire Ajay Piramal’s empire exemplifies hegemonic subsumption of radical ecology: while Piramal Pharma faces verified allegations of chronic ecocide—groundwater poisoning in Digwal, Telangana (NGT ₹8.3 crore fine, net ₹3.2 crore paid as 0.09% of FY25 revenue; ongoing NGT case OA 1032/2024) and hydrochloric acid dumping in Dahej, Gujarat (GPCB closure, ₹1 crore fine, Supreme Court scrutiny in February 2026, swift interim resumption)—Piramal Realty markets ultra-luxury towers in Mumbai’s IPCC/CRZ high-risk flood zones (e.g., Piramal Mahalaxmi at ~3 m elevation) as “biophilic living” paradises with curated greenery, passive ventilation, and token sapling drives. The family’s own Worli sea-facing mansions (Gulita’s 50,000 sq ft diamond-glass palace) flaunt imported opulence with minimal genuine sustainability, embodying Lewis Mumford’s critique of architectural imperialism. Meanwhile, the Piramal School of Leadership’s Jaipur “walled garden” campus—shortlisted for the 2025 World Architecture Festival—parades biophilic design, passive cooling, and reduced concrete use while branding itself as the future “Piramal University” (a UGC violation) and indoctrinating 50,000–150,000 officials annually in appropriated radical terms like “regenerative agriculture” (Rodale/Shiva lineage), “One Water,” and “systems change” (Macy/Capra/Norberg-Hodge). Through Foucauldian selving, Piramal constitutes itself as “compassionate” and “regenerative” precisely by emptying anti-capitalist vocabularies. Backed by ₹85–88 crore in BJP electoral bonds (2019–2024), this discursive capture enables regulatory impunity amid slow violence on marginalized communities. The article calls for radical rupture: revenue-proportionate penalties, ecological restoration, de-subsumption of language, and militant reclamation by grassroots movements—exposing eco-extortionism where ecocide funds the performance of planetary salvation. Even the Department of Consumer Affairs’ February 2026 anti-greenwashing poster rings hollow when tycoons like Piramal and Adani greenwash unchecked.
IBC’s Clean Slate and the Unpaid Sin: Section 32A, Section 66, and the Corporate Metamorphosis of Liability
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 establishes a dual legal framework combining fraud recovery and insolvency resolution. Section 66 embodies the Code’s accountability function by empowering recovery from fraudulent and wrongful trading, thereby restoring value to creditors. In contrast, Section 32A, introduced in 2019 with retrospective effect, extinguishes corporate criminal liability once a resolution plan is approved and control passes to new management. This paper argues that these provisions operate in structural tension: Section 66 presupposes continuity of corporate liability to enable recovery, while Section 32A extinguishes corporate criminal liability while preserving corporate identity, assets, and economic continuity. Through a doctrinal case study of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL), this paper demonstrates how avoidance recoveries identified under Section 66 remained corporate assets transferred to the resolution applicant, even as Section 32A extinguished the corporate debtor’s criminal liability for the underlying misconduct. This produced a structural asymmetry in which the corporate entity retained the economic benefits of fraud-linked recoveries while being legally immunized from responsibility for the fraud itself. The retrospective insertion of Section 32A further created a temporal dislocation, altering legal consequences after insolvency had commenced. The paper concludes that the interaction between Sections 32A and 66 represents a fundamental transformation in insolvency law—from a creditor-recovery framework grounded in accountability to an acquirer-protection framework grounded in corporate immunity—raising profound questions about equality before law and the political economy of insolvency resolution.
Pamphlet For DHFL Victims: No More “Clean Slates” For IBC-Proof Crony Capitalism!
This manifesto is a fact-based cry from over 2.5 lakh DHFL depositors who lost life savings in massive 54–77% haircuts. It chronicles how India’s first AAA-rated NBFC — a sound ₹91,000+ crore housing finance company — was deliberately dismantled under the IBC: starting with Ajay Piramal’s “shock” warning (28 Jan 2019) followed by the Cobrapost exposé (29 Jan 2019), RBI supersession (20 Nov 2019), CIRP admission (3 Dec 2019), mid-process insertion of Section 32A immunity (28 Dec 2019), ignored full-repayment proposals, a Re 1 giveaway of ₹45,000 crore Section 66 recoveries, judicial overrides culminating in Supreme Court approval (1 Apr 2025), reverse mergers to sanitize legacy, and PMLA discharge of the corporate debtor (2 Feb 2026) under Section 32A — while Piramal Finance now thrives (AUM ₹96,690 crore up 23% YoY, PAT up 162%). Highlighting statutory contradictions, CoC bias allegations, and a documented political-corporate nexus, it demands repeal of Section 32A, scrapping the IBC, restitution, and an end to SLAPP suits — framing the DHFL case as engineered crony sanitisation, not genuine resolution.
The “Clean Slate” That Was Engineered: How IBC’s Section 32A Enabled the DHFL–Piramal Takeover
The DHFL insolvency resolution, culminating in its acquisition by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance (now Piramal Finance) and the February 2, 2026, Mumbai PMLA Special Court discharge from a ₹5,050 crore money-laundering case under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), exemplifies alleged systemic flaws in India’s insolvency framework. This “clean slate” immunity extinguished corporate criminal liability for pre-CIRP offences while preserving prosecution against former promoters like the Wadhawan brothers, despite their ignored full-repayment proposals. Critics portray the process—marked by retrospective Section 32A insertion in December 2019 just before DHFL’s CIRP admission, Ajay Piramal’s January 2019 “shock” prediction preceding the Cobrapost exposé, massive creditor haircuts (54–77% on retail FDs/NCDs), nominal Re 1 valuation for ₹45,000 crore Section 66 avoidance recoveries benefiting Piramal, and upheld “commercial wisdom” in the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025, judgment—as engineered cronyism favoring politically connected acquirers via electoral bond donations (Piramal entities contributed significantly to BJP coffers per 2024 ECI data), family ties to Ambani, Flashnet deal controversies, and PM CARES funding. Amid Piramal Finance’s resurgence (AUM ₹96,690 crore up 23% YoY, 9M FY26 PAT ₹1,004 crore up 162%, CRISIL AA+ rating), victim groups decry SLAPP suits silencing dissent, statutory contradictions prioritizing new owners over creditors, and demand full repeal of Section 32A to dismantle what they term a sophisticated mechanism of crony enrichment at the expense of lakhs of ordinary depositors’ savings.
Pre-Admission, Perpetual Intimidation: Piramal’s Defamation SLAPP Against DHFL Victims
This document contends that the defamation suit filed by corporate tycoon Mr. Ajay Piramal (through DSK Legal) against DHFL victims and activists in Bombay High Court Suit S/42/2025 constitutes a textbook Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to chill constitutionally protected public-interest speech arising from criticism of the 2021 DHFL IBC resolution. Drawing on official court orders, registry records, and procedural chronology, it argues that the suit remains mired at the pre-admission/directions stage due to fatal defects—including continued filings under a defunct corporate name, defective service, ignored written statements, asymmetrical timelines, and uncured plaint infirmities—rendering it vulnerable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Situating the case within broader Indian jurisprudence cautioning against chilling-effect litigation, and invoking Articles 19(1)(a), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, the document frames the proceedings not as bona fide reputational redress but as corporate intimidation of financially devastated citizens engaged in non-violent civil dissent, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs.
Digwal’s Poison, Dahej’s Acid, Mumbai’s Climate Time-Bombs: Mr. Piramal’s Toxic Trails
This essay argues that the Piramal Group’s pharmaceutical and real-estate operations exemplify a systemic model of accumulation by dispossession in contemporary capitalism, wherein ecological harm, public-health burdens, and climate vulnerability are externalized onto marginalized communities while profits are privatized and reputational risk is managed through regulatory reprieves, corporate restructuring, and CSR spectacle. Through the long-running groundwater contamination crisis at Digwal, the very recent February 2026 hazardous discharge episode at Dahej affecting the Narmada-linked canal system, and the development of ultra-luxury coastal real estate in flood-prone zones of Mumbai, the text demonstrates a recurring pattern: violation, brief enforcement theatre, rapid operational normalization, and uninterrupted high-margin expansion. It situates these cases within theoretical frameworks of slow violence, ecological surplus extraction, and philanthropic greenwashing, arguing that fines function as licensing fees rather than deterrents and that dynastic corporate networks convert environmental risk into both profit and spectacle. The essay concludes by demanding a materially enforced Polluter Pays regime—extending beyond monetary penalties to full ecological restoration, community restitution, structural limits on expansion, and legally binding accountability—insisting that environmental justice cannot be offset through philanthropy, CSR branding, or procedural compliance while the biosphere itself absorbs irreversible damage.
Once in a Blue Moon Academia 