Mumbai: A fresh complaint filed by suspended Privilege Power and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (PPIPL) director Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has widened the allegations surrounding the company’s financial distress, this time raising questions over the conduct of its ongoing insolvency resolution process and the composition of its Committee of Creditors (CoC).
In his August 20 complaint, Wadhawan has alleged that Suraksha ARC, which acquired PPIPL’s loan exposure from Yes Bank in 2017, manipulated its voting position in the CoC, with its share rising from 23.39% to 35.99% through allegedly irregular debt assignments, recognition of disputed claims and other actions during the insolvency proceedings. He alleged that the increase was aimed at giving Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (SARCL) greater control over the insolvency process and has sought an ED investigation into the claim-verification process, debt assignments and the circumstances in which its voting share was increased.
Recently on July 29, the ED shared the dossier with Mumbai Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) containing material relating to alleged financial irregularities, suspected diversion of funds and transactions involving entities associated with the Suraksha Group. Based on the dossier, the EOW has added charges of cheating, forgery and using forged documents against Suraksha ARC, its promoter Sudhir Valia and others in an ongoing investigation into an alleged Rs 1,000 crore financial fraud linked to Yes Bank.
The complaint also names Rama Subramaniam Gandhi and his association with Yes Bank and Capri Global Ventures Pvt Ltd – a group entity of Capri Global – which Wadhawan has identified as one of the prospective resolution applicants for PPIPL. Wadhawan has relied on corporate records to allege that Gandhi was appointed as a director of Yes Bank in July 2022 and subsequently became a director of Capri Global Ventures in May 2024. He alleged that the association created a potential conflict of interest because Yes Bank was connected to PPIPL’s earlier financing and assignment of its loan exposure, while a Capri Global group entity was participating in the insolvency process.
The complaint alleged that the arrangement could potentially facilitate access to confidential information concerning PPIPL or influence the resolution process. It did not, however, provide evidence that confidential information was actually shared or that Gandhi influenced the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The complaint further alleged lapses by Anurag Kumar Sinha, the resolution professional overseeing the CIRP, accusing him of failing to address the alleged conflict and of allowing Suraksha ARC to exercise disproportionate influence over the CoC.
PPIPL has been undergoing insolvency process pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated February 15, 2023. According to the complaint, Suraksha ARC is currently one of the major financial creditors and holds a 35.99% voting share in the CoC, compared with 23.39% recorded earlier.
The August 20 complaint reiterated Wadhawan’s earlier allegations concerning Yes Bank’s 2017 assignment of PPIPL’s loan account to Suraksha ARC-11 Trust. He had alleged that the account had not been classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) at the time of assignment and questioned the alleged movement of funds through entities linked to the transaction.
The latest complaint seeks to connect those allegations with the ongoing insolvency proceedings, arguing that Suraksha ARC’s position as a major financial creditor gives it significant influence over PPIPL’s resolution process and underlying assets
The allegations have not been independently established, and any determination regarding the legality of the voting share, claim recognition, debt assignments or alleged conflicts would depend on the underlying CIRP records and findings of the competent authorities.
