Krishan Rattan & Ankiti Bose: What the Public Record Shows, and What It Doesn’t

As of 29 September 2026, no court, regulator or enforcement agency in India, Singapore, the United Kingdom or the UAE has made a finding of wrongdoing against Krishan Rattan or Ankiti Bose. Every search of court, insolvency, company and enforcement records for this brief came back the same way.

The record is not empty. It contains a CEO dismissed “with cause” in May 2022 after a forensic investigation whose report has never been published; a US$100 million civil fraud claim in London in which Rattan was second defendant until it was discontinued by consent in August 2026; a London FX company he founded that went into creditors’ voluntary liquidation in 2019; an Indian logistics company on whose board he sat for six years and which entered insolvency eleven months after he left, with ₹993.26 crore of secured claims now admitted; and an investment firm, Terra-Invest, whose headline numbers (US$12 billion of transactions, US$1.2 billion under management) have no independent support that this check could find.

It also contains three court orders obtained by the two subjects against Nitin Naresh and the Inventiva platform, one of which restrains “any further articles containing any defamatory imputations” while expressly preserving the right to keep fact-finding. This brief is that fact-finding. Every statement below links to the page it was taken from. Where a claim rests only on Inventiva’s own earlier articles or on Terra-Invest’s press statements, it is labelled as such and not treated as established.

Ankiti Bose and Zilingo: what is established

Zilingo raised US$308 million in total and was valued at US$970 million in February 2019; three years later its board sacked its co-founder and CEO “with cause”, and within nine months the company was in liquidation. Those facts are documented by the investors themselves, by the board’s own statements and by the Singapore registry. What has never been made public is the forensic report on which the dismissal rested.

Zilingo Pte. Ltd. was incorporated in Singapore on 27 November 2014 and launched in 2015 by Bose (ex-Sequoia India analyst, ex-McKinsey) and Dhruv Kapoor. Its Series D of US$226 million in February 2019 was led by Sequoia Capital India and Temasek with Burda Principal Investments, Sofina and EDBI; EDBI’s own announcement puts cumulative funding at US$308 million, and Fortune recorded the US$970 million valuation. Bloomberg reporting carried by Fortune put FY2021 revenue at roughly US$40 million, down about a third; Inc42 later reported that three different FY2021 revenue figures (US$190 million, US$164 million and US$140 million) had gone to shareholders while other books showed about US$40 million. The company had not filed annual accounts since 2019.

On 31 March 2022, after a whistleblower complaint reached the board on the eve of a US$150–200 million raise being run by Goldman Sachs, Bose was suspended and Kroll was engaged to examine the books, with Deloitte looking at harassment complaints she raised (Fortune/Bloomberg; Business Today). The nominee directors of Sequoia, Temasek and Burda left the board in April (Inc42). On 20 May 2022 the board announced: “Following an investigation led by an independent forensics firm that was commissioned to look into complaints of serious financial irregularities, the company has decided to terminate Ms Ankiti Bose’s employment with cause, and reserves the right to pursue appropriate legal action” (Entrackr). Bloomberg, via Bloomberg Law, reported that the probe had identified payments of more than US$7 million to service providers signed by her without the knowledge of senior executives. Bose’s answer: “There is not a single payment made by Zilingo that did not have proper documents” (Business of Fashion), and, of the process, “I have yet to be presented with the findings of both Kroll AND Deloitte” (Inc42).

Lenders Varde Partners and Indies Capital, owed about US$40 million, accelerated repayment on 13 May 2022 (Reuters via Euronews). A management buyout proposed by Kapoor and endorsed by Bose in June 2022 was rejected (Forbes). Bose resigned all Zilingo directorships on 30 June 2022 (Business Standard). The technology assets went to Buyogo AG of Zurich in January 2023 at an undisclosed price (Inc42); EY Corporate Services was appointed provisional liquidator on 19–20 January 2023 (Bloomberg Law); creditors resolved on a voluntary winding-up after an EGM on 17 February 2023, and the ACRA-derived record still showed the company in liquidation in March 2026. Burda said on 28 April 2023 that “significant irregularities in reporting to investors” contributed to the failure and that “the investors are still considering options for legal action” (IANS via Daijiworld).

Three and a half years on, no suit by Zilingo, its liquidators or any investor against Bose has been found in any jurisdiction, and no action by Singapore’s Commercial Affairs Department or MAS has been reported. The Delhi High Court, reciting her case on 24 August 2026, recorded that “no investigation report was furnished to her and there has been no judicial finding of guilt against her” (CS(OS) 756/2026). Both halves of that sentence are accurate: the report exists, it was acted on, and nobody outside the company has seen it.

Bose’s litigation: she is the plaintiff in every case found

In four years Bose has sued or filed complaints against a columnist, a journalist and a broadcaster, her co-founder and former chief operating officer, and Nitin Naresh and the Inventiva platform; no suit against her has been found. Every proceeding located is one she started, and none has reached a final judgment on the merits.

Two details from these files matter for the rest of this brief. In the Inc42 suit, Bose pleaded that the article was accessed in Mumbai by “Anand Singh and Shailesh Haribhakti, potential investors and business associates”; Justice Modak observed that “there is every reason to believe that this pleading in the Petition is made after the Defendants have objected to the jurisdiction of this Court” (Free Press Journal). That is the only documentary link between Bose and Haribhakti before he surfaced as Terra-Invest’s Mentor-In-Chief. And the Murthy column she sued over said an unnamed founder had her company pay a lawyer ₹70 crore in fees, “a lot of” which was “rumoured” to have come back to her; the interim injunction turned on whether she was identifiable and on the balance of convenience, and the truth of the allegation has not been tried.

Not included here: an alleged GST prosecution complaint against Bose in Mumbai and alleged proceedings at Saket court, which appear only in Inventiva’s own articles and could not be verified from any court record or independent report.

Krishan Rattan: the résumé against the record

Of the six headline claims on Terra-Invest’s team page, one has independent support: an English judge’s description of Rattan as “a former Soc-Gen banker”. The rest rest on Terra-Invest’s and Mount Row’s own words, repeated through paid or sponsored placements.

What the registries do establish is a two-country corporate footprint built around the name Voltaire. In London, Rattan was a director of Voltaire Capital (United Kingdom) Ltd, the FX trading company, in 2013, 2014–16 and from 2016; it resolved to wind up on 17 May 2019 with Deloitte partners appointed liquidators in a creditors’ voluntary liquidation (The Gazette), and was dissolved on 23 Apr 2025. He was director and a person with significant control of its parent, Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd, from 2016 until 29 Mar 2019; that company is now the first claimant in the case brought against him. In Mumbai, under DIN 07998639, he sits with Rajiv Ramesh Lulla on the boards of Voltaire Securities Pvt Ltd (from 2018), Voltaire Advisory Services Pvt Ltd (from 2020) and Deep Blue Advisors Pvt Ltd (from 2022), all registered at the same Mahalaxmi flat; and he was a director of Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt Ltd from 19 Apr 2019 to 20 Jun 2025 (FileSure).

On the other side of the ledger: the Companies House disqualified-directors register returns nothing for his name, The Gazette carries no insolvency or bankruptcy notice, and the ICIJ Offshore Leaks database has no entry for him. A “Krishan Rattan” listed at Qwaja Pure Ltd, cited in an earlier Inventiva piece, was born in April 1995; the Voltaire director was born in November 1978. They are different people.

The Voltaire litigation: what the judgments actually say

For three and a half years Krishan Rattan was the second of fourteen defendants in a US$100 million civil fraud claim in the London Commercial Court, listed for a ten-week trial from 12 October 2026. On 5 August 2026, two months before trial, the claim against him ended by consent. Nothing in the public record says on what terms.

The case is Voltaire Capital Holdings Limited & Ors v Eric Watson & Ors, CL-2022-000699. The claimants are five vehicles of the Gemini Group, investment companies associated with the Sawiris family of Egypt (the judgment names “Naguib Sawiris of Gemini”; a New Zealand outlet described the claimants as an “Egyptian billionaire family”). Bryan J summarised their case in [2026] EWHC 1103 (Comm), 24 April 2026. “These claims relate to investments of approximately USD $101 million made between 2014 and 2019 by the Gemini Group … in connection with their involvement in a group of companies known as the Voltaire Group” (para 9); in all, “Gemini invested circa US$132 million, including capital injections (of which circa US$101 million was lost)” (para 18). “The Claimants contend that they were led to believe that Voltaire was a legitimate business, controlled principally by D2 (Mr Rattan) and intending to develop and operate a legitimate FX business” (para 10), whereas, they say, “Voltaire was owned and controlled in large part by (D1, Mr Watson), who they say was an established fraudster”; the defendants “caused Voltaire’s FX business principally to trade on uneconomic terms with Stater (D4/5) and IronFX (D11/12) which were held out as independent counterparties but in which Mr Watson, Mr Rattan and others were also interested”; they “induced Gemini to make further investments … including by producing forecasts which had no basis in reality”; and they “caused Voltaire to make payments for the benefit of themselves and their associates” (para 11). The pleaded causes of action were “fraudulent misrepresentation, breaches of fiduciary duty and duties of good faith owed to Voltaire and to Gemini, and in conspiracy and accessory liability” (para 12).

Every word of that is the judge’s summary of the claimants’ pleading. None of it was tried, and none of it was found. Two things in the judgments do bear on Rattan directly. First, a costs order: in [2025] EWHC 1948 (Comm), 28 July 2025, Nigel Cooper KC found that a disclosure-guidance application Rattan brought had been “conducted by the parties [in a manner] consistent with a heavily contested disclosure application rather than an application for informal guidance”, that he “pressed ahead with the hearing notwithstanding the large volume of documents for review”, and ordered that “the Second Defendant should pay the Claimants’ costs … summarily assessed in the amount of £63,267.00”. Second, a passage in his favour: rejecting co-defendant William Gibson’s attempt to plead a conspiracy between Rattan and the claimants, Bryan J said that “Mr Rattan and his family (as the purported 65% indirect shareholders, via the Benkelton Trust), would themselves have been the main losers from such an arrangement, which therefore makes no sense” (para 93(2)). The same judgment records that Rattan’s defence of 23 June 2023 admitted the claimants’ account of the mechanics of the 2016 restructuring as “broadly accurate (if incomplete)” (para 81(2)), and that he was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

The context the claimants relied on is a matter of record. In Glenn v Watson [2018] EWHC 2016 (Ch), Nugee J was “completely satisfied” that Eric Watson “resorted to deliberate deception” and recruited Miles Leahy and William Gibson to do so; all three are Rattan’s co-defendants. Rattan was not a party to that case and nothing in it concerns him.

The discontinuance itself has not been published. Its existence rests on three sources that agree with each other: the Delhi High Court’s recital, in CS(OS) 815/2026, of Rattan’s case that a “consent order dated 05.08.2026” discontinued the proceedings against him “without any adverse finding of fraud, dishonesty or wrongdoing”; Terra-Invest’s statement, carried by DNA India and india.com, that proceedings “have been discontinued following an agreement between the Claimants and Mr Rattan” and that “the Notice of Discontinuance was filed on 6 August 2026”; and ANI’s report of the Delhi hearing. “Without any adverse finding” is accurate and is also the least a discontinuance can be: a claim that ends by agreement produces no finding either way. What the agreement contained, who bears the costs, whether any sum changed hands, and whether the claim proceeds to trial against the other thirteen defendants on 12 October 2026, are not in any document that has been made public. Those are the open questions, and they are Rattan’s and the claimants’ to answer.

DLI, Infrastructure India plc and the ₹993 crore

The ₹993 crore figure is real and is now verified from the insolvency professional’s own list of creditors: ₹9,93,25,78,707.28 of secured financial-creditor claims were provisionally admitted against Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (DLI) as of 6 June 2026. Rattan sat on DLI’s board from 19 April 2019 to 20 June 2025, a period that covers the 2021 debt restructuring, the December 2022 default, the March 2023 NPA classification and the April 2024 loan recall. He left eleven months before the company was admitted to insolvency. The admission order does not name him or any other director.

The company. DLI, formerly Vikram Logistic & Maritime Services, was incorporated in Mumbai on 16 December 1992 and runs container terminals and logistics parks at Palwal, Nagpur and Bengaluru (NCLT order; dlinfra.com). It is 99.99% owned, through a Mauritius holding company, by Infrastructure India plc (IIP), an Isle of Man closed-end fund listed on AIM in 2008 and managed since 2011 by affiliates of Guggenheim Global Infrastructure Company (GGIC); IIP’s chief executive from March 2011 was Rahul “Sonny” Lulla, a GGIC founder (IIP RNS, 11 Feb 2011). Lulla has been a DLI director since 18 September 2008; Rattan’s appointment on 19 April 2019 came the day after Rohina Lulla left the board and seventeen days after IIP announced a US$105 million loan from a GGIC affiliate secured on DLI’s shares (ZaubaCorp; IIP RNS, 2 Apr 2019).

The parent’s collapse. IIP’s three lenders were all GGIC affiliates charging 15%: IIP Bridge Facility LLC (US$121.5 million principal, about US$107 million accrued interest by July 2024), GGIC Ltd (US$21.5 million, about US$33 million interest) and Cedar Valley Financial (US$64.1 million, about US$70 million interest); GGIC also held 75.4% of IIP’s shares and its asset manager, Franklin Park Management LLC, of which Lulla is “a co-founder and partner”, drew a fixed fee of £5.52 million a year (RNS 16 Jul 2024; RNS 15 Sep 2016; Telok Partners). By 30 September 2023 IIP had net liabilities of £217.4 million (RNS 27 Mar 2024). At the AGM on 26 June 2024, the board’s own proposals to delist and wind up were defeated, with 67.28% of votes cast against (RNS); the last independent director resigned, the board became inquorate, the nominated adviser walked, and the shares were cancelled from AIM on 2 September 2024 (RNS). Bloomberg reported in May 2024 that companies owned by or connected to Dodgers owner Mark Walter and Guggenheim Partners had put US$320 million into IIP since 2011, that a whistleblower alleged a former partner “stole the money”, and that police in Gurugram had opened an inquiry (Bloomberg). No FIR number, charge sheet or agency case has been located; “Infrastructure India plc scam’s accused”, the phrase in an earlier Inventiva headline, describes no document that could be found.

The insolvency. Bank of India petitioned under section 7 of the IBC on a default of ₹77.30 crore dating from 29 December 2022 (NPA 28 March 2023). DLI’s own affidavit put total consortium debt at about ₹689 crore. A one-time settlement of ₹590 crore was accepted by the Bank of Baroda-led consortium on 4 October 2025, DLI was declared successful bidder on 30 October 2025, and the ₹59 crore upfront payment was never made; the bank told the tribunal that earlier offers of ₹517, ₹550 and ₹574 crore had “remained on paper only”. NCLT Mumbai (Nilesh Sharma and Sameer Kakar) admitted the company on 14 May 2026 and appointed Prashant Jain interim resolution professional (order). The first list of creditors, as on 6 June 2026, admitted ₹993.26 crore across six secured lenders: Bank of Baroda ₹408.09 crore (41.09%), Punjab National Bank ₹224.37 crore, Union Bank of India ₹164.01 crore, Bank of India ₹95.85 crore, ARCIL ₹82.55 crore and State Bank of India ₹18.38 crore (IBBI summary; creditor detail). On 30 June 2026 all six assigned their debt to JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company, which now holds 100% of the vote; by 24 July 2026 total admitted claims were ₹997.47 crore, including ₹1.72 crore for 89 employees out of ₹18.72 crore claimed by 113 (third list). Resolution plans were invited on 25 July 2026 (IBBI).

What this does and does not establish about Rattan. Three numbers are being conflated in the coverage and should be kept apart: ₹689 crore is the consortium principal DLI acknowledged; ₹993.26 crore is the secured debt admitted with interest; ₹1,316.79 crore is the face value of charges registered at the MCA (The Company Check). None is a liability of Rattan’s. The record shows a director who served through six years of deterioration at a company whose parent was controlled by its own lenders, and who resigned in June 2025, four months before the consortium accepted a ₹590 crore settlement that was never funded. Whether the board explored alternatives, what it knew about the parent’s related-party debt spiral, and why four settlement offers were made and none funded are questions the IBC process may answer through the resolution professional’s transaction audit. They are not answered by anything yet on the file.

The network: documented against asserted

The ICIJ entries for three people around Rattan are accurate as far as they go, and the database’s own caveat applies: “This database is not intended to suggest wrongdoing by any person or entity.” The harder claims made about the same people, that one is an “accused”, that another admitted lying in court, do not survive a check against the source documents.

The overlaps are real: Rattan shares three Indian boards with Rajiv Lulla and shared one with Rahul Lulla for six years; Haribhakti and Rajiv Lulla sat together at Blue Star for more than seven years; Mount Row’s registered office moved in September 2026 to Telok Partners’ address, where Rahul Lulla now advises. Overlap is what a network is. Whether any of it involved money moving improperly is a question no document located here answers, in either direction.

Where Krishan Rattan and Ankiti Bose actually meet

The only documented connection between the two is Terra-Invest itself. No shareholding, transaction, payment or personal relationship linking them appears in any registry, court file or independent report.

Both are listed as “Founding Partner” on the Terra-Invest team page, alongside Kirk Wagar, US Ambassador to Singapore from 2013 to 2017. Bose’s biography there says Kairoswealth, the wealth-tech company in which Mount Row led a US$25 million round in 2023 with Rattan as chairman, was “co-conceptualised” with Rattan and Vincent Teyssier; Kairoswealth’s own site names Rattan and Wagar on its board and does not mention Bose. The sequence is worth noting. In February 2024 Gulf News, carrying a press release, described Terra Invest as the “venture builder arm” of Rattan’s Mount Row Partners, with no mention of Bose (Gulf News). Four months later the launch coverage presented it as Bose’s comeback: Business Today named only Bose and Wagar as founders (Business Today), DNA had her “teaming up with … financial services entrepreneur Mr. Krishan Rattan” (DNA India), and a Khaleej Times paid programme named all three (Khaleej Times). Her 2026 profiles, all in sponsored sections, style her Chairperson of “Terra Future Health Group” and refer to Zilingo without naming it, as an e-commerce company with a “rapid rise, scale and eventual decline” (Outlook Hub4Business).

The two filed their suits against Nitin Naresh separately, three weeks apart, with two of the same junior counsel (Paritosh Anil and Anupriya Poddar) appearing in both (CS(OS) 756/2026; CS(OS) 815/2026). ANI and the Statesman describe them as “Terra Invest founders”.

What is not there: any record of a marriage or personal relationship (searched; nothing in any source); any role for Bose at Mount Row (none documented); any connection of either to the Mahadev betting app or to the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution of Ebix chairman Vikas Garg. The ED’s case, as reported from the Raipur PMLA court in July 2026, concerns betting proceeds routed into the 2024 Ebix acquisition and names neither Bose, Rattan, Zilingo nor Terra-Invest (Free Press Journal). The chain proposed in earlier Inventiva pieces (Zilingo paid EbixCash about US$944,000 in 2021; Ebix was bought in 2024 by a consortium including Garg’s company; Garg was arrested in 2026) connects a vendor payment to events three and five years later involving different owners. Those pieces themselves concluded that “there is no evidence placing Bose or Rattan inside the Mahadev network”. That remains the position.

Key figures at a glance

The earlier series against the record

Inventiva published at least eight pieces on these two people between 16 and 24 September 2026. Checked claim by claim against primary sources, the series is right on the documents it read and wrong or unsupported where its headlines went beyond them.

The court orders now in force

Three interim orders obtained by Bose and Rattan bind Nitin Naresh and the Inventiva platform as of today. None decides the truth of anything; each governs what may be published while the suits are pending, and each has a return date in October 2026.

Sources: CS(OS) 756/2026 order; CS(OS) 815/2026 order; Republic World/ANI on the 16 Jul 2026 order; The Tribune/ANI.

Terra-Invest has also stated that “civil and criminal lawsuits and complaints” have been lodged against Naresh and Inventiva “in both India and the United Arab Emirates” and has used the words “blackmail” and “extortion” (DNA India). No FIR number, UAE case number or complaint copy has been published; those are the company’s assertions and stand unverified in exactly the way the allegations against its founders do.

Read together, the orders leave room for what this document is: reporting of court records, registry filings and regulatory notices, with the subjects’ positions stated. They leave no room for characterisation that goes beyond those records.

Enforcement status and the files still open

No criminal charge, regulatory order or enforcement action naming Ankiti Bose or Krishan Rattan was found in any jurisdiction. The questions the record leaves open sit in six files, each with an owner and, in most cases, a timetable that can be watched.

The defamation suits in Delhi and Mumbai will decide what may be said about these people; they will not decide what they did. The six files above are the ones that could. All have been open for between four months and more than four years without a public finding, and their slow progress is the reason the argument is being conducted in headlines rather than in judgments. The interest of every party, including the two subjects, is that the resolution professional’s audit, the Singapore liquidators and the Gurugram police reach conclusions and publish them.

Disclaimer

Allegations remain allegations. As of 29 September 2026, no court of law in any jurisdiction has convicted Krishan Rattan or Ankiti Bose of any offence, and no court, regulator or enforcement agency has made a finding of fraud, dishonesty or other wrongdoing against either of them. The civil claim against Rattan in London was discontinued by consent without any finding. The forensic investigation that preceded Bose’s dismissal has never been published, and no proceeding has been brought against her on the strength of it. Statements summarised here from court pleadings, whether the Voltaire claimants’ or the subjects’ own, are the positions of parties, not findings of any court. The ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database states that it “is not intended to suggest wrongdoing by any person or entity”, and appearance in it establishes nothing beyond the recorded role. Both subjects dispute the allegations against them and have said so in court; their positions are set out above. Anything in this record that is shown to be inaccurate will be corrected. Requests for correction and the subjects’ responses should be sent to the publisher and will be added to this document.