Chandra Proteco: CBI registers case, alleges Rs 210 crore loss

The Central Bureau of Investigation said it has registered a case against Chandra Proteco Limited, three directors and unidentified public servants and others over an alleged wrongful loss of about Rs 210 crore to five banks. The agency also said it searched premises linked to the directors in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, and seized ledgers and other documents.

The case follows a complaint from Indian Bank’s Stressed Asset Management Branch in Mumbai, according to the CBI statement. The agency named the company’s directors as Ranjeet Gupta, Anilesh Gupta and Aparna Gupta.

The CBI said the case concerns alleged criminal conspiracy to cheat the banks and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the law dealing with corruption involving public servants. Its statement did not specify the statutory sections invoked or identify the public servants under investigation.

IANS reported the registration and searches in a report published by Lokmat Times on 29 October 2026. The CBI statement did not give a date for either action. The report’s publication date therefore does not establish when investigators registered the case or searched the premises.

Credit facilities and alleged losses cover different amounts

According to the CBI’s account of the complaint, the accused allegedly conspired to obtain cash credit facilities, term loans and letters of credit totalling Rs 541.46 crore from a consortium of six banks led by Indian Bank. A consortium is a group of lenders financing the same borrower.

The facilities serve different purposes. Cash credit provides borrowing for business operations within an agreed limit, while a term loan is repayable over an agreed period. A letter of credit is a bank’s undertaking to pay a supplier when specified conditions are met.

The credit figure and the alleged loss are not interchangeable. The CBI described Rs 541.46 crore as the total facilities obtained, rather than the amount allegedly lost. It attributed the alleged wrongful loss to five banks, including Indian Bank, although the lending consortium comprised six.

The statement did not name the other lenders, provide a bank-wise breakdown of the alleged loss or explain why the loss covered five banks rather than all six consortium members. It also did not specify the period during which the facilities were obtained.

CBI alleges diversion through associate companies

The CBI alleged that Chandra Proteco operated undisclosed accounts with banks outside the consortium and diverted funds through associate companies instead of using them for their sanctioned purposes. The complaint, as described by the agency, concerns the alleged handling and use of borrowed funds, not simply a failure to repay them.

The agency also alleged that letters of credit devolved through entities sharing common directors or through sister concerns. Devolvement refers to the issuing bank having to meet the payment obligation because the borrower does not.

The CBI statement did not identify those entities, set out the transactions through which funds allegedly moved or quantify the amount allegedly diverted through each company. Tracing the end-use of the loan funds remains one of the stated purposes of the investigation.

Following registration of the case, investigators searched multiple premises linked to the directors in Prayagraj, the agency said. It described the seized material as ledgers from the relevant period and other incriminating documents connected with the investigation. It did not disclose their contents or specify how many premises were searched.

The allegations have not been presented in the supplied material as findings of guilt. The CBI statement did not include a response from Chandra Proteco or the three named directors.

Separate tribunal record concerns a January hearing

A separate order from the National Company Law Tribunal’s Kolkata Bench records a proceeding titled Aparna Gupta vs Chandra Proteco Limited. The order sheet, dated 27 January 2026, was issued by judicial member Bidisha Banerjee and technical member Cmde Siddharth Mishra.

The tribunal recorded that neither party appeared and listed the matter for consideration on 16 March 2026. The order identifies the proceeding as being under Section 94(1), but contains no substantive discussion of the application, the parties’ positions or the company’s borrowing.

That order was a procedural direction to list the matter for another hearing, not a determination of the allegations subsequently described in the CBI statement. Neither document establishes a connection between the tribunal application and the criminal investigation.

The January order also does not establish what happened at the scheduled March hearing or the tribunal proceeding’s present status. It provides no basis for treating the bank-fraud allegations as having been considered or decided by that bench.

In the criminal case, the CBI said investigators were continuing to establish the full extent of the alleged conspiracy and identify the roles of those involved, including public servants and private individuals. The agency’s stated work also includes determining where the loan funds ultimately went.