Category Archives: Activities

The article strongly commends the NCLT (May 19, 2021) and NCLAT (January 27, 2022) for their bold rulings in the DHFL insolvency case, which criticized the exclusion of ex-promoters, exposed irregularities in the resolution plan by Ajay Piramal, and questioned the opaque conduct of the RBI-appointed Committee of Creditors (CoC). It highlights the lack of transparency in auditing, denied access to CoC audits under RTI, and systemic disregard for small depositors. The authors critique the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025, judgment for upholding the resolution plan without adequately addressing these issues, while remanding the matter of avoidance transaction recoveries to the NCLT. Emphasizing a pro-people, constitutional ethos, the piece appeals to NCLT and NCLAT to uphold their earlier stances and protect public interest, calling for justice and restitution for DHFL’s small depositors.

The article critically examines the Indian judiciary’s handling of the DHFL insolvency case under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), questioning whether justice is becoming a mere formality. It highlights the overarching dominance of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the insolvency resolution process, where their decisions are treated as final with minimal judicial scrutiny. This unchecked supremacy, the article argues, has allegedly led courts—including the Supreme Court—to endorse CoC decisions without thorough examination, thereby reducing judicial oversight to a ritualistic procedure. A major concern is the exclusion of the Wadhawan family from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), despite their offer to repay the entire debt, and the opaque handling of their final settlement proposal, which was not shared with Fixed Deposit and Non-Convertible Debenture holders who held considerable voting power. The piece further raises serious questions about potential biases within the CoC, particularly the preference shown toward a specific bidder, and criticizes the judiciary for failing to probe these allegations effectively. Ultimately, it calls for greater judicial accountability and intervention to uphold justice, transparency, and fairness, especially in high-stakes financial cases affecting a wide spectrum of stakeholders.

The article urges victims of the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) collapse to submit their grievances via the Leader of the Opposition’s portal, Awaaz Bharat Ki. It alleges the DHFL crisis was a politically orchestrated scam allegedly benefiting industrialist Ajay Piramal through a “quid pro quo” with the BJP. The article highlights the plight of fixed deposit and non-convertible debenture holders—especially vulnerable groups like senior citizens, widows, the disabled, and charitable trusts—who lost their savings due to DHFL’s fraud. A timeline traces events from the 2019 exposure of financial irregularities to ongoing legal proceedings in 2025, criticizing the RBI-appointed Committee of Creditors for a biased resolution process. The article proposes five remedies: (1) ending crony capitalism and dismantling BJP-industrialist collusions (Ambani, Adani, Piramal); (2) Supreme Court intervention to ensure justice; (3) launching mass protests and social media campaigns for accountability; (4) securing judicial autonomy by separating it from executive control; and (5) scrapping the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (2016), citing its misuse in DHFL’s case. It closes with a call for distributive justice through collective resistance and systemic reform.

The article critiques the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025, verdict, which overturned the NCLAT’s 2022 ruling, prolonging the financial agony of DHFL victims. It argues that this decision serves corporate interests, particularly Piramal’s alleged adverse possession of DHFL, while entangling victims in endless litigation. The piece calls for global advocacy, urging victims to take their fight to the United Nations and engage in digital and/or street-based civil resistance against what it describes as a compromised judiciary serving political and corporate elites.

The article examines the recent verdict of the Supreme Court of India regarding the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) “fraud” (?) cases. It raises concerns about the integrity, accountability and transparency of the present Indian judiciary, highlighting India’s low rankings in global indices related to the rule of law and corruption. The piece also touches upon alarming incidents, such as the discovery of burnt cash at a judge’s residence, and critiques the perceived erosion of the separation between the judiciary and the political executive. These issues are framed within a broader context of the challenges confronting India’s democratic institutions, prompting critical questions about the Supreme Court’s verdict on the DHFL “Scam” cases. The article concludes with a call for hope, emphasizing the potential for resilience on the part of the DHFL victims.