The NCLT Mumbai has removed former PNB executive director Sanjiv Sharan from the company petition linked to the alleged Rs 11,400-crore Nirav Modi-Gitanjali Group fraud and vacated the attachment of his properties. The tribunal found no material showing his direct or indirect complicity, while clarifying that its observations were not conclusive if further evidence emerges.

The NCLT Mumbai has removed former PNB executive director Sanjiv Sharan from the company petition linked to the alleged Nirav Modi-Gitanjali Group fraud | Representational Image

Mumbai, September 24, 2026: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Thursday ordered the deletion of Sanjiv Sharan, former Executive Director of Punjab National Bank (PNB), from the company petition filed in connection with the alleged Rs 11,400-crore Nirav Modi-Gitanjali Group fraud case.

Petition And Investigation

The petition was filed before the tribunal following an examination of the material arising from the said FIRs, which identified 107 companies and seven LLPs allegedly connected with the financial fraud.

The NCLT, in its order, maintained that the applicant (Sharan) was posted as Executive Director at the relevant time and was working at the PNB head office in Delhi, where he was responsible for managing the affairs of the bank at the Board level.

`;

“The Applicant was never an official of Punjab National Bank at Brady House, nor was he associated with any of the alleged entities that included 107 companies, 7 LLPs and the trusts that committed the fraud upon PNB. There is nothing in the SFIO investigation report to indicate that the applicant was directly responsible for the oversight on the foreign exchange transactions that took place at Brady House Branch or was responsible for integration of SWIFT messages with CBS. It is also noted that there is no specific material, let alone circumstantial inferences, to prove the allegation of the Union that the Applicant had intentionally failed to carry out his duties in accordance with the Bank’s standard operating procedure in this relation, for which he was responsible to.”

Union Opposes Deletion

The Union of India opposed the deletion of Sharan’s name from the petition and instead justified his impleadment solely on the basis of the inclusion of his name in the chargesheet filed by the CBI. However, the company petition, PNB investigation report and SFIO investigation report do not mention the applicant as being complicit or having any role in the modus operandi of the fraud.

“The facts of this case are similar to facts in the case of K.V. Brahmaji Vs. Union of India wherein the NCLAT, following the decision in the case of Usha Ananthasubramaniam, held that ‘the Appellant was the Executive Director of PNB, Head Office, New Delhi i.e. employee of other organization. Therefore, he cannot be impleaded as Respondent in the Company Petition, which is actually against the Nirav Modi Group and Gitanjali Group of Companies. The case of the Appellant is on the same footing as that of Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian…’

“In the present case also, the Applicant is Executive Director of PNB sitting at Head Office Delhi and no evidence has been placed on record demonstrating even the indirect complicity of the applicant in the perpetration of fraud. Accordingly, it cannot be said on prima-facie evidence(s) before us that the applicant may have participated in, facilitated or assisted the perpetration of the fraud knowingly. Accordingly, we consider it appropriate to delete the name of the Applicant as a party respondent in the Company Petition.”

Attachment Of Properties Vacated

The Tribunal also decided to vacate the attachment of the properties of the applicant made by order dated 31.01.2019, insofar as its applicability to the applicant was concerned.

“It is clarified that our observation in relation to conduct of the applicant are solely based on the material before us, and should not be taken as conclusive finding on the role of the applicant in the alleged fraud, if such role is otherwise proved on the basis of further material brought on record before any authority or forum or court,” the order copy reads.

Timeline Of NCLT Proceedings

Timeline of the Nirav Modi–Gitanjali Group NCLT proceedings

2016: Sanjiv Sharan was appointed as Executive Director of Punjab National Bank (PNB) on September 15, 2016. The order records that he was posted at PNB’s Head Office in New Delhi.

Feb 14–16, 2018: PNB officially reports the massive fraud to stock exchanges and investigative agencies; ED and CBI raid Gitanjali Group offices

February 2018: Following the PNB fraud allegations, the Union government directed the SFIO to investigate 107 companies and seven LLPs linked to the alleged fraud. The company petition was subsequently filed before the NCLT.

February 23, 2018: The NCLT passed an interim order restraining identified companies, LLPs, trusts and individuals from transferring or disposing of their assets, pending investigation.

January 31, 2019: The NCLT impleaded 19 additional persons, including Sharan, as respondents and extended the restraint orders to them. Sharan was Respondent No. 84.

February 2, 2022: Sharan filed a rejoinder denying any association or connivance with Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi or the entities involved in the alleged fraud.

November 21, 2019 / subsequent SFIO proceedings: The Union relied on SFIO material alleging failures relating to SWIFT-log generation and reconciliation with CBS data. The SFIO report was later accepted by the Central Government.

Also Watch:

September 24, 2026: NCLT Mumbai allowed Sharan’s application, deleted his name from the company petition and vacated the attachment of his properties under the 2019 order. The tribunal said there was no material before it demonstrating even indirect complicity in the alleged fraud, while clarifying that its observation was not a conclusive finding if further material emerges.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Add As a

Trusted Source