Future Retail: CBI searches Mumbai premises in SBI loss case

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has searched Mumbai premises linked to Future Retail Ltd’s promoters and directors after registering a case over an alleged Rs 904.32 crore loss to State Bank of India (SBI), the agency said. CNBC-TV18 reported that the searches took place on 6 November, following registration of the case on 4 November 2026.

The CBI’s first information report (FIR), the document recording the allegations for investigation, names Future Retail, Kishore Biyani, Rakesh Biyani, unknown public servants and unknown others. The case follows a complaint from SBI’s Stressed Assets Management Branch-III in Mumbai.

The agency said it recovered and seized documents relevant to the investigation during searches at multiple premises. Its statement does not specify the number of premises searched or describe the documents recovered.

The Rs 904.32 crore figure is the alleged wrongful loss to SBI, not a stated loss for the entire group of lenders. The CBI is investigating allegations of conspiracy, cheating and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; these are not findings of criminal guilt.

SBI alleges funds went to connected entities

According to the CBI’s FIR, Future Retail obtained credit facilities from SBI’s Commercial Branch at Fort, Mumbai. Its working-capital borrowing, used to finance day-to-day business, was under a consortium of nine banks led by Bank of India. Term loans were provided under a multiple-banking arrangement involving separate lenders.

The CBI statement also identifies letters of credit among the facilities extended to the company. These are bank-backed payment commitments used in commercial transactions.

Future Retail operated stores under formats including Big Bazaar, Fashion@Big Bazaar, Foodhall and Hypercity, according to the FIR. Its business covered fashion, household and consumer products, alongside trading in fast-moving consumer goods and fashion merchandise.

The CBI alleges that the company did not use borrowed funds for their sanctioned purposes and instead diverted money through associated companies and connected entities. The FIR alleges that substantial sums went to related parties whose financial capacity and business operations were not commensurate with the transactions.

The FIR attributes these concerns to a forensic audit, an examination of financial records for suspected irregularities, conducted by BDO India LLP. According to the FIR, the audit report was dated 15 September 2023 and covered transactions between 1 April 2017 and 30 April 2022.

The CBI’s account of the audit also refers to alleged manipulation of accounting records, falsification of books and layering of transactions through connected entities. Layering describes moving money through successive transactions or entities in ways that can obscure its source or destination. The FIR alleges that these practices concealed the company’s true financial position.

Those assertions are set out in the CBI’s account of the complaint and audit, rather than in a judicial determination. The agency’s press statement does not include a response from Future Retail, Kishore Biyani or Rakesh Biyani.

From repayment default to the criminal case

The FIR records several separate stages before the searches. It says Future Retail’s account was classified as a non-performing asset, or NPA, with retrospective effect from 26 April 2021 because of non-payment of outstanding dues. NPA classification identifies a problem loan; it is distinct from a bank’s subsequent fraud classification.

According to the FIR, the account was declared fraud on 23 March 2026 on the basis of the forensic audit report.

SBI’s complaint, dated 9 October 2026 and attached to the FIR, says the borrower was given an opportunity to make a representation before the fraud classification. The bank records that it issued a show-cause notice on 19 December 2025 to Future Retail and its directors or promoters, Kishore Biyani and Rakesh Biyani. Such a notice calls on its recipients to explain their position before a decision.

The CBI registered the case under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning criminal conspiracy and cheating, as well as provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, according to the FIR. The FIR records the suspected offence period as 2017 to 2022.

Liquidation preceded the CBI case

Future Retail’s financial distress had already resulted in a liquidation order before the criminal case was registered.

In Bank of India v. Future Retail Limited, the National Company Law Tribunal’s Mumbai Bench, Court-II, ordered liquidation on 29 July 2024. The bench comprised judicial member Kuldip Kumar Kareer and technical member Anil Raj Chellan.

The order records that the corporate insolvency resolution process began on 20 July 2022. That process seeks an approved plan to resolve a company’s debts. Resolution professional Vijaykumar V. Iyer later applied for liquidation following a decision by the Committee of Creditors, the lenders’ decision-making body.

According to the tribunal, the only resolution plan ultimately put to a vote failed to secure the required support. The creditors subsequently decided on 26 October 2023 to liquidate the company.

The tribunal held that the maximum resolution period had expired without an approved plan and ordered liquidation under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It appointed Sanjay Gupta as liquidator and directed him to endeavour to sell the company as a going concern, meaning as a business rather than solely through separate asset sales.

A subsequent sale notice issued by Gupta, dated 10 November 2024 and hosted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, scheduled an asset auction for 9 December 2024. It listed damaged or scrap inventory and other assets in Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi. The notice establishes that assets were offered for sale, not the auction’s outcome or the amount recovered.

The CBI said its investigation would trace the end-use of the loan funds and establish the roles of those involved, including public servants and private individuals. Its statement leaves the full extent of the alleged conspiracy under investigation.