The Supreme Court (SC) has agreed to close all criminal cases against Nitin and Chetan Sandesara, the billionaire promoters of the Sterling Biotech group, once they deposit ₹5,100 crore by 17 December 2025. The unprecedented order, released by the SC on 19 November 2025, quashes proceedings related to charges of corruption, bank fraud, money laundering, black money, tax violations offences under the Companies Act, and even their designation as fugitive economic offenders.
In a bunch of orders, the bench of justice JK Maheshwari and justice Vijay Bishnoi says, "...it is apparent that since inception, this Court was of the view that if the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount as settled in one-time settlement (OTS) and public money comes back to lender banks, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose. The tenor of the proceedings apparently indicate peculiarity, with intent to protect the public money and interest and to get deposited the defalcated amount. In furtherance, the consensus has been arrived at as indicated above. In this view, in the peculiar facts and situation of the present case, discretion as prayed, deserves to be exercised for granting the relief, as prayed and to direct for quashment of all the proceedings."
"In view of the foregoing, subject to deposit of ₹5100 crore as indicated towards full and final settlement with the lender banks and investigating agencies, these petitions deserve to be allowed granting the following reliefs...Upon submitting the claims, the deposited amount shall be disbursed to the respective lender banks on proportionate basis in reference to the amount due towards them," the SC added.
The relief applies to a long list of cases filed by agencies including the central bureau of investigation (CBI), directorate of enforcement (ED), serious fraud investigation office (SFIO) and income-tax (I-T) department, provided the brothers deposit the amount as a full and final settlement. The petitions, filed in 2020, had sought quashing of first information reports (FIRs), charge-sheets, prosecution complaints, attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. The SC’s order notes that all these proceedings will stand terminated once the money is deposited.
The figure of ₹5,100 crore emerged after years of litigation, negotiations with lender banks, interim protections, and stalled enforcement proceedings. According to the order, the amount of defalcation alleged in the CBI FIR was ₹5,383 crore. The total dues under various OTS granted by banks to the Sterling group amounted to ₹3,826 crore for Indian entities and ₹2,935 crore for foreign guarantor entities, together totalling ₹6,761 crore.
Of this, the group had already deposited ₹3507.63 crore under earlier OTS conditions and pursuant to SC orders during the pendency of the case. Lenders had additionally recovered ₹1,192 crore through insolvency proceedings before the national company law tribunal (NCLT).
After adjusting these recoveries, the unpaid component stood at ₹2,061.37 crore. However, during the hearing on 18 November 2025, Tushar Mehta, the solicitor general, representing the investigating agencies and after consultation with the bank consortium, placed a sealed-cover proposal seeking ₹5,100 crore as a final settlement amount. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Sandesaras, informed the bench that his clients would pay the entire sum in exchange for the complete quashing of all criminal and civil proceedings. The Court, recording the consent of both sides, accepted this proposal the following day.
The judicial record reflects that the bench had, from early stages, been inclined towards permitting an arrangement that secured the recovery of public money. Interim orders passed since 2020 had kept the criminal proceedings in abeyance on the assurance that the petitioners were willing to pay substantial amounts and that the 'sword' of ongoing prosecution was hampering repayment. On several dates, including February 2020, November 2021, January 2022 and May 2022, the Court noted that payments were being made and encouraged resolution with the banks.
Over the years, multiple tranches—ranging from ₹600 crore to undertakings for US$50mn (million) instalments—were recorded by the Court. In one order in March 2024, the bench noted that US$50mn had already been transferred into a bank recovery account, with another US$50mn to follow within days and an additional US$100mn promised within eight weeks.
The final order, running over multiple pages, carefully notes the calculations of deposits, dues, and recoveries under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the consensus figure of ₹5,100 crore. Importantly, the bench emphasised that the arrangement was based on the 'peculiar facts' of the case and would not serve as a precedent.
The order states that continued prosecution would not serve a useful purpose if the petitioners were ready to bring back the entire amount settled under the OTS and the defalcated public money. Once deposited, the total amount would be kept in a short-term interest-bearing fixed deposit with a nationalised bank and later disbursed proportionately among lender banks after verification by the registrar (judicial-administration). The order grants the registrar the liberty to seek expert accounting assistance and to approach the bench for clarifications.
All proceedings listed in the relief clauses of the petitions—including two CBI FIRs, ED’s ECIRs and prosecution complaints under PMLA, fugitive economic offender proceedings, SFIO complaints, black-money prosecutions, and cases under the Companies Act—stand quashed subject to payment.
The brothers had faced allegations of orchestrating one of India’s largest bank frauds, with investigations spanning corruption, money laundering, and alleged siphoning through offshore structures. The promoters, known for their sprawling industrial group that included pharmaceuticals, engineering, energy and an oil business in Nigeria, had left India in 2017, reportedly using Albanian passports, according to earlier filings. ED and CBI had alleged that the group siphoned thousands of crores through shell entities, falsified accounts and laundered funds abroad. In 2020, they were declared fugitive economic offenders under the 2018 Act, a category they shared with Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi. The new order revokes this designation entirely.
The case had drawn sharp scrutiny for years. Reports dating back to 2020 highlighted how the four powerful promoters—Nitin Sandesara, Chetankumar Sandesara, Dipti Sandesara and Hitesh Patel—had been accused of manipulating the judicial and banking systems. They had secured an OTS of ₹3,100 crore from a consortium of banks for Sterling Biotech, despite owing over ₹15,600 crore across group companies. They had paid only ₹181 crore initially, with the national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT) stipulating that the full settlement be completed by 31 March 2020. Instead, they sought repeated extensions, engaged in renegotiations from abroad, and even requested time until December 2021 citing Covid-19 disruptions, despite the OTS already being sanctioned.
A letter written by Nitin Sandesara to Union Bank of India in July 2020 indicated how they sought more time, even offering to distribute smaller sums lying in the current accounts of group entities. Reports had questioned why banks were permitting such latitude to absconding promoters while small borrowers faced severe enforcement action during the pandemic.
Questions had also been raised then about how Sterling Biotech’s promoters continued to exert influence, despite facing CBI, ED and SFIO probes, and how group assets reportedly capable of generating monthly cash flows were simultaneously valued at a liquidation value as low as ₹300 crore. Critics had warned that lenient treatment of fugitive promoters could open the door for others like Gitanjali Gems and Winsome Diamonds to seek similar settlements, especially when banks were accused of not pursuing recoverable assets abroad, including the group’s profitable Nigerian oil venture.
The SC order is, therefore, likely to ignite fresh debate on the relationship between criminal prosecution and financial settlements in cases involving economic fugitives. While the Court has explicitly stated that its decision should not serve as a precedent, the brothers’ settlement offer—amounting to roughly a third of the total dues as estimated by investigative agencies—may prompt other high-value defaulters to seek comparable relief.
The challenge for lenders is recovering the entire dues once promoters flee and assets erode or become entangled in litigation across jurisdictions. The Sandesara case, involving multiple agencies and overlapping proceedings, had become a reference point for such challenges.
For now, the SC’s direction offers the Sandesara brothers a clean slate, contingent on fulfilling the payment deadline. If the ₹5,100 crore is deposited by 17 December 2025, the criminal, civil, insolvency-linked and economic offender proceedings that have pursued them for nearly a decade, will stand extinguished. While lenders will receive proportionate recoveries, the broader implications for corporate accountability, deterrence and the future treatment of fugitive economic offenders remain subjects of intense scrutiny.
You may also want to read...
