Mandke Foundation vs Union Of India & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 10462/2026 & CM APPL. 48506/2026
MANDKE FOUNDATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arshdeep Singh
Khurana, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr.
Sulakshan V., Mr. Vishvendra
Tomar, Mr. Arjun Singh, Ms.
Tannavi Sharma, Ms. Simran
Khurana, Mr. Prabhav Bahuguna,
Mr. Shreyas Maheshwari and Mr.
Naman Maheshwari, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr.
Kamlendra Mishra CGSC, Mr.
Krishna Pandey, Mr. Vinod
Kumar, Mr. Shivam, Mr. Akash
Mishra, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr.
Amit Gupta and Mr. Subhash
Sharma, Advocates for R-1 and
R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral )
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Mandke Foundation, a
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013
and stated to be engaged in charitable activities by running the
Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research
Institute at Mumbai. The limited grievance raised in the present
petition is that Respondent No. 2, the Serious Fraud Investigation
Office ( SFIO ), has initiated an investigation involving some
companies, pursuant to Orders dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025
passed by Respondent No. 1, i.e. the Ministry of Corporate Affairs
( MCA ), however , the respondents have neither furnished copies of
the said orders nor the material forming the basis thereof, despite
requiring the petitioner to participate in the such investigation and
furnish extensive information.
2. The brief facts, as set out in the writ petition, are that on
11.04.2026, the SFIO issued a notice to the petitioner under Section
217 of the Companies Act, 2013, stating that an investigation into the
affairs of Reliance Home Finance Limited and certain other
companies had been directed under Section 212 of the Companies
Act pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed by the MCA. Vide the
said order dated 11.04.2026, the petitioner was called upon to furnish
extensive information and documents, including bank account
statements, financial records and other documents pertaining to the
period from the financial year 2008-09 to 2025-26, and details of its
dealings with the entities mentioned in the notice. The relevant
portion of said notice reads as under:
“Sub: Investigation into the affairs of Reliance Home Finance
Limited, Reliance Communications Limited and other
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
companies u/s 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 - calling
information u/s 217 - regd.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, New
Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section
212(1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013, vide order No.CL-1I-
03/192/2025-O/o DGCoA-MCA dated: 30-OCT-2025 and
vide order No. CL-II-03/255/2024-O/oDGCoA-MCA dated:
12-NOV-2025 has ordered the Serious Fraud Investigation
Office (SFIO) to investigate into the affairs of Reliance Home
Finance Limited, Reliance Communications Limited and other
companies i.e. the companies under investigation (CUls). The
undersigned has been appointed as the Inspector by the
Competent Authority to carry out the said investigation.
x x x
3. In this regard, it is informed that the analysis of bank
account transactions and financial statements of Companies
Under Investigation (CUIs) revealed that your company/Entity
had directly/indirectly entered into the financial transactions
with CUI/CUIs. Therefore, in pursuance to above sections of
the law you are hereby directed to provide the soft copies of
the details/documents for the time period FY 2008-09 to FY
2025-26 sought in Annexure A attached hereby.
4. All documents/data sought in the attached Annexure A
needs to be submitted (along with a hard copy of the cover
letter containing the index of data) in digital form in hard
disks/pen drives in two copies- one working copy (hard
disk/pen drive) and second copy being a sealed hard disk/pen
drive along with the certificate issued under Section 63(4) of
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 signed by the
person duly authorized by the Company/Board. A copy of the
said certificate is attached as Annexure B for your reference.
x x x
8. This letter may be treated as Notice u/s 217 of the
Companies Act, 2013 and non-compliance of the directions
shall make you liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of
Section 217 sub section (8) of the Companies Act, 2013.”
3. The petitioner asserts that it was never supplied with, or
informed of the contents of, the MCA orders and that it first became
aware of their existence only through the reference contained in the
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
notice issued by the SFIO. Thereafter, by an email dated 27.05.2026,
the SFIO called upon the petitioner to furnish the requisite
information on or before 05.06.2026.
4. The petitioner states that, on 05.06.2026, it submitted a
detailed response expressing its willingness to cooperate with the
investigation. However, it requested the SFIO to first furnish copies
of the MCA orders dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025 so as to enable
it to ascertain the scope and basis of the investigation insofar as it
concerned the petitioner. The petitioner also informed the SFIO that
the information sought was voluminous, that certain records were
available only from the financial year 2018-19 onwards, and sought
six weeks' time from the receipt of the aforesaid orders to furnish the
requisite information. According to the petitioner, despite the said
request, neither the MCA orders nor the material forming the basis
thereof have been furnished, nor has any response been given to its
request.
5. It is further averred that, notwithstanding the above, the SFIO
has continued with the investigation and, by summons dated
20.07.2026 issued under Section 217 of the Companies Act, called
upon the petitioner’s present Director Tina A. Ambani and its former
Director Jai Anshul A. Ambani, to appear before the SFIO on
29.07.2026 and 30.07.2026, respectively.
6. Aggrieved by the continued non-disclosure of the MCA orders
and the material forming the basis thereof, despite being required to
participate in the investigation and furnish information, the petitioner
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition
seeking, inter alia , a direction to the respondents to furnish copies of
the MCA orders dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025 along with the
records and material forming the basis thereof.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that upon receipt of the reminder email dated 27.05.2026,
the petitioner, within the time granted, submitted a reply dated
05.06.2026 expressing its willingness to cooperate with the
investigation. However, it requested the respondents to first furnish
copies of the MCA Orders dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025, stating
that in the absence thereof, it was unable to ascertain the scope and
basis of the investigation insofar as it concerned the petitioner. It was
also pointed out that the information sought was voluminous and that
certain records would require retrieval from archival sources. Despite
the said request, the respondents neither furnished the MCA Orders
nor assigned any reason for withholding them, and instead proceeded
to issue summons to the petitioner’s Director and former Director. It
is argued that an order under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act
is not a routine administrative order and carries serious statutory
consequences. Therefore, once the respondents seek to act upon such
orders against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to copies
thereof and the material forming the basis thereof to understand the
scope of the investigation and avail of its legal remedies. It is
contended that requiring the petitioner’s officials to appear before the
SFIO while withholding the very orders authorising the investigation
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
8. The learned senior counsel also clarifies that the present writ
petition is confined to seeking copies of the MCA Orders and the
material forming the basis thereof. He submits that the petitioner is
not, at this stage, challenging the validity of the said orders and
reserves its right to do so upon their disclosure in separate
proceedings.
9. Per contra , the learned ASG appearing for the respondents
submits that the present writ petition is premature and not
maintainable. He submits that the investigation being conducted by
the SFIO pertains to a larger group of companies and that several
proceedings relating to the same investigation, including writ
petitions seeking similar prayer, are already pending before the
Bombay High Court. It is contended that if the documents sought by
the petitioner are directed to be disclosed in the present proceedings,
the same would also have a bearing on those proceedings and the
ongoing investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s
grievance is founded on the alleged violation of the principles of
natural justice. However, the stage for compliance with the principles
of natural justice has not yet arisen. According to the learned ASG,
disclosure of the investigation orders and the material forming the
basis thereof at this stage would impede the ongoing investigation as
the companies under the investigation would get insight into the
evidences against them and understand the road map of investigation
and may indulge in destruction of evidence etc., and it would
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
prejudice not only the investigation with respect to the petitioner but
also other connected matters. Drawing the attention of this Court to
Section 212 of the Companies Act, particularly sub-sections (1)(c),
(7) and (8), the learned ASG submits that the statutory scheme
contemplates various stages of investigation, and no prosecution has
been launched yet. It is submitted that the stage contemplated under
Section 212(8) has admittedly not been reached and, therefore, no
cause of action has accrued in favour of the petitioner to seek the
relief claimed in the present petition. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has sought to create a fractured cause of action by isolating
one aspect of the ongoing investigation and invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. Lastly, it is contended that principles of
natural justice applicable to civil or administrative proceedings
cannot be imported into the course of a criminal investigation, and
the petitioner cannot claim disclosure of investigation material as a
matter of right at this stage.
10. In rejoinder, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the respondents’ reliance on Section 212 is
misconceived. He submits that the stage under Section 212(1)(c) has
already been crossed, inasmuch as the MCA has already formed the
requisite opinion and, by Orders dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025,
directed investigation into the affairs of the concerned companies by
the SFIO through appointment of inspectors. It is submitted that it is
pursuant to the said orders that the impugned notice and summons
under Section 217 of the Companies Act have been issued to the
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, once
the investigation has already been set in motion on the basis of the
MCA Orders, the petitioner is entitled to be furnished copies thereof
to understand the basis and scope of the investigation insofar as it
concerns the petitioner. It is contended that in absence of MCA
orders, the petitioner and its officials cannot exercise their right to
legal remedy and hence, are handicapped in joining investigation any
manner whatsoever.
11. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
petitioner as well as the respondents, and has perused the material
available on record.
12. At the outset, it may be noted that the present petition has been
filed at a stage when the investigation directed by the MCA under
Section 212 of the Companies Act is admittedly in progress. The
petitioner is not seeking to challenge the investigation itself. The
limited prayer in the present petition is for supply of the MCA Orders
dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025 along with all the records and
material forming the basis thereof, vide which such investigation was
directed to by conducted.
13. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties at
length, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings being
conducted by the SFIO are presently at a preliminary stage. The
notice dated 11.04.2026 issued by the SFIO only called upon the
petitioner to furnish information and documents, under Section 217
of the Companies Act. The said notice itself records that the Central
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
Government has directed investigation into the affairs of Reliance
Home Finance Limited and other related companies and it further
informs the petitioner that, upon analysis of the bank account
transactions and financial statements of the Companies Under
Investigation, it has been found that the petitioner-company had
directly or indirectly entered into financial transactions with such
companies. It is on that basis that the petitioner was called upon to
furnish the documents specified in the notice dated 11.04.2026.
14. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was left
completely unaware of the nature or purpose of the information
sought, inasmuch as the notice itself discloses that the information
has been sought in connection with an ongoing investigation into the
affairs of the aforenoted companies under investigation, and that the
petitioner is being called upon to furnish documents in view of its
financial transactions with such companies. The petitioner was also
informed of the categories of documents required to be produced,
including the relevant financial records and bank account statements
for the period specified in the notice.
15. The material placed on record also reveals that the petitioner
was initially issued the notice dated 11.04.2026, and thereafter, a
reminder was issued on 27.05.2026 whereby the petitioner was called
upon to furnish the required information by 05.06.2026. In response
thereto, the petitioner, by its reply dated 05.06.2026, had sought
copies of the MCA Orders and had requested six weeks’ time to
collect and furnish the information on the ground that the records
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
were voluminous and certain documents would have to be retrieved
from archival sources. However , admittedly, the petitioner did not
furnish the information sought even thereafter. It is only subsequently
that summons dated 20.07.2026 came to be issued requiring the
petitioner’s Director and former Director to appear before the SFIO.
In these circumstances, the issuance of summons has to be seen in the
backdrop of the petitioner’s failure to furnish the information sought
despite the notice and the reminder issued by the SFIO.
16. Furthermore, this Court also cannot lose sight of the nature of
the investigation. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the
respondents that the investigation pertains to several companies and
forms part of a larger investigation being carried out by the SFIO. It
has also been pointed out that proceedings arising out of the same
investigation are also pending before the High Court of Bombay.
This Court has also been informed that the MCA Orders contain
sensitive information concerning the ongoing investigation into
various entities and disclosure of such details at this stage would
adversely affect, not only the present investigation, but also the
connected cases and proceedings pending before the High Court of
Bombay. At this stage, this Court finds no reason to disregard the
said contention, since the investigation is admittedly continuing and
disclosure of the orders passed by MCA directing such investigation,
together with the entire material forming the basis thereof, at this
stage, may prejudice the course of the investigation extending beyond
the present petitioner alone.
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09
17. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that no
enforceable right has been made out by the petitioner to seek
disclosure of the MCA Orders and the underlying material at this
preliminary stage of the investigation. Needless to state , if at any
subsequent stage any action prejudicial to the petitioner is taken, it
shall be open to the petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be
available in law and raise all contentions permissible in accordance
with law.
18. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the
same is dismissed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
20. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 29, 2026/zp
W.P.(C) 10462/2026 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:29.07.2026
18:48:09