CBI Book Chandra Proteco Limited And Its Directors

CBI registers Rs 210.13 crore bank fraud case against Chandra Proteco Limited, conducts searches

The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case involving alleged bank fraud of approximately Rs 210.13 crore against M/s Chandra Proteco Limited and conducted searches at premises linked to its directors. The case arises from credit facilities totaling Rs 541.46 crore obtained from a consortium of six banks led by Indian Bank. According to the CBI, five of the banks suffered the wrongful loss.

The agency’s announcement states that the matter goes beyond ordinary loan default. It alleges the operation of clandestine bank accounts outside the consortium, diversion of credit facilities through associate companies and sister concerns, and the use of letters of credit involving entities that shared common directors.

Registration of the FIR and the subsequent searches do not establish guilt. The allegations remain under investigation.

Scale of the facilities and alleged loss

The CBI has stated that Chandra Proteco Limited obtained credit facilities of Rs 541.46 crore. The approximate wrongful loss quantified by the agency is Rs 210.13 crore. The difference between the two figures is Rs 331.33 crore. These amounts represent different aspects of the banking relationship and are not interchangeable. The facilities included cash credit, term loans and letters of credit extended by the six-bank consortium headed by Indian Bank.

Company background and liquidation status

Chandra Proteco Limited (CIN: U27109WB2004PLC100708) was incorporated on 14 December 2004 and is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Kolkata. It is classified as a public unlisted company engaged in the manufacture of basic iron and steel. Its registered address is listed as 165, Rabindra Sarani, Room No. 405A, Kolkata, West Bengal.

Corporate records available through aggregator platforms show the company as under liquidation. Its last recorded annual general meeting was held on 28 September 2017, and the last reported balance sheet pertains to the financial year ending 31 March 2017.

A Calcutta High Court order dated 11 July 2017 directed the winding-up of Chandra Proteco Limited at the instance of L&T Finance Limited. The Official Liquidator was directed to take possession of the company’s assets and effects. This position was recorded in a subsequent order of the same court dated 7 May 2018 in the matter of Chandra Proteco Ltd (in liquidation) – L&T Finance Ltd versus Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta.

Liquidation is a corporate winding-up process and is distinct from the criminal allegations now under investigation by the CBI.

Directors named in the CBI announcement

The CBI has named three directors in connection with the case.

Ranjeet Gupta is recorded in corporate databases with Director Identification Number 00125826. He was appointed a director of Chandra Proteco Limited on 17 August 2011 and ceased to hold the position on 4 August 2014. He has also been associated with Chandra Metals Limited as managing director and with Datum Securities Limited as a former director.

Anilesh Gupta (DIN 00127601) was appointed to Chandra Proteco Limited on 13 December 2006. Corporate records link him to Chandra Proteco Limited, Chandra Metals Limited, Hari Vyapaar Private Limited and Virtuous Holdings Private Limited.

Aparna Gupta (DIN 00127607) was appointed on 14 December 2004 and is recorded as a whole-time director. A Karnataka High Court judgment of January 2025 identifies her as a director of Chandra Proteco Limited and as the wife of Mukul Gupta.

Mukul Gupta does not appear among the three directors expressly named in the CBI announcement. Corporate records and the same Karnataka High Court judgment identify him as managing director of Chandra Proteco Limited, with an appointment date of 1 June 2010. His precise role, if any, in the matters under investigation has not been detailed in the public announcement.

Nature of the alleged facilities and transactions

According to the CBI, the company obtained cash credit facilities, term loans and letters of credit. Cash credit is a working-capital facility ordinarily used to finance inventory, receivables and day-to-day operations. Term loans are typically extended for specific purposes such as acquisition of plant and machinery. Letters of credit are bank undertakings to pay a beneficiary upon presentation of specified documents and are commonly used in trade.

The agency has alleged that letters of credit devolved through entities sharing common directors or belonging to sister concerns. It has further alleged that funds were diverted and siphoned off through associate companies and that the company operated clandestine accounts with banks outside the lending consortium.

Opening accounts with non-consortium banks is not in itself prohibited. The relevance of such accounts depends on the terms of the consortium arrangements, the purpose for which the accounts were used, and whether funds were moved in a manner that defeated the monitoring framework agreed among the lenders.

Historical banking exposures

Historical datasets compiled by CRIF High Mark contain entries relating to Chandra Proteco Limited that predate the present CBI case by more than a decade.

One entry records an outstanding amount of Rs 101.40 crore with Allahabad Bank (Bombay Khar branch) as of 30 September 2013, classified DF-2. The same entry lists associated banks including Allahabad Bank, Andhra Bank, UCO Bank, Corporation Bank, Bank of India and IDBI Bank, and names Jagdish Kesarwani, Ranjeet Gupta, Mukul Gupta, Anilesh Gupta and Aparna Gupta in the director information.

A separate entry records an outstanding of Rs 50.23 crore with Andhra Bank (Opera House branch) classified as doubtful in December 2014, naming Mukul Gupta, Anilesh Gupta and Aparna Gupta.

Another entry shows approximately Rs 45.56 crore outstanding with Corporation Bank (Mumbai-ARMB branch), also classified as doubtful, and lists J.K. Kesarwani, Ranjeet Gupta, Mukul Gupta, Anilesh Gupta and Aparna Gupta.

These historical records indicate that the company already carried substantial stressed banking exposures in 2013–2014. They cannot simply be aggregated to arrive at a consolidated figure, nor do they establish the quantum of loss alleged in the 2026 CBI case. They provide documentary evidence of earlier financial stress.

Related court proceedings

In addition to the 2017 winding-up order, the company’s liquidation matter continues to engage the Calcutta High Court. IDBI Bank Limited has filed proceedings against Indian Bank and others in Company Petition CP/91/2016, with interlocutory application CA/17/2023. On 12 February 2025 the court recorded that the Official Liquidator had filed a status report pursuant to the 2017 winding-up order. An order dated 23 September 2026, passed by Justice Rai Chattopadhyay, noted that affidavits had been exchanged in CA/17/2023 and directed the matter to be listed on 30 September 2026 for further consideration.

Separately, the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) dealt with Criminal Petition No. 100887 of 2020 in the matter of M/s Chandra Proteco Limited versus State of Karnataka. The petition sought quashing of proceedings arising from a complaint by Mark Michael concerning an alleged unpaid employment-related settlement. The complaint referred to meetings in Mongolia in 2011, an agreed monthly remuneration of US$23,000, claimed outstanding remuneration of US$160,000 by 2013, and a subsequent settlement figure of US$155,530. Allegations under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were involved.

On 7 January 2025, Justice J.M. Khazi dismissed the petition seeking quashing. The court noted that a chargesheet had been filed and that the accused had obtained bail. This proceeding is distinct from the bank-fraud case registered by the CBI in October 2026.

Legal provisions and searches

The CBI announcement refers to offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The precise sections invoked in the FIR have not been detailed in the public statement. The agency has included unknown public servants within the scope of the investigation. No specific bank official has been named in the announcement, nor has any particular act of corruption been described.

Following registration of the case, the CBI conducted searches at multiple premises linked to the company’s directors in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. The agency recovered and seized ledgers relating to the relevant period and other documents considered incriminating. The announcement does not disclose the number of locations searched, the identities of property owners, the volume of material seized or whether any arrests were made.

Consortium composition and timeline

The CBI has identified Indian Bank as the consortium leader but has not named all six banks in its public announcement. Historical CRIF records associate the company with Allahabad Bank, Andhra Bank, UCO Bank, Corporation Bank, Bank of India and IDBI Bank. These associations are historical and do not confirm the precise membership of the consortium that extended the Rs 541.46 crore facilities. The merger of Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank into Union Bank of India in April 2020 is a relevant factor when tracing older loan accounts.

The case remains under investigation. The CBI’s public announcement provides the framework of the allegations. The precise period of the facilities, the amounts actually disbursed and outstanding, the identities of the five banks that suffered loss, the names of associate companies and the documentary trail of funds have not been set out in the materials released so far.