Karamtara faces pending CBI case over alleged 2013 invoices

Karamtara faces a pending Central Bureau of Investigation, or CBI, case after a supplementary chargesheet dated October 17, 2024 alleged non-genuine invoices linked to three letters of credit opened in its favour in 2013. Karamtara and three current or former finance leaders sought to quash the proceedings on September 19, 2025.

Why does Karamtara face a CBI case over alleged 2013 invoices?

Karamtara faces the CBI case because the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Bhopal alleged that Jyoti Power Corporation Private Limited, or JPCL, submitted non-genuine invoices to a bank for the supply of goods under three letters of credit opened in Karamtara's favour in 2013. The CBI branch set out that allegation in a supplementary chargesheet filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad on October 17, 2024.

The supplementary chargesheet was filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which concerns further investigation after a police report. It alleges offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, or IPC, against Karamtara, Tanveer Singh, Prasanta Kumar Nath, Suresh Maheshwari and certain third parties. The prospectus does not disclose the value of the three letters of credit, the invoices alleged to be non-genuine, or a monetary claim arising from this case.

The absence of a disclosed amount distinguishes the CBI case from litigation where Karamtara reports a quantified claim or adjustment. The available disclosure establishes the alleged mechanism, namely invoices submitted by JPCL to a bank against three 2013 letters of credit, but does not establish a potential financial liability or identify the third parties referred to in the chargesheet.

Who is seeking to quash the Karamtara CBI case?

Karamtara and three named individuals filed a quashing application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on September 19, 2025. The applicants are promoter Tanveer Singh, Chief Financial Officer Prasanta Kumar Nath and Vice President, Accounts and Finance Suresh Maheshwari, alongside Karamtara.

Tanveer Singh is also identified in the litigation disclosure as Karamtara's Chairman and Managing Director. The four applicants are collectively described as respondents in the CBI proceeding, while the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Bhopal is the investigating agency whose proceedings they seek to quash. The prospectus states that the matter remains pending, so filing the application did not itself terminate the case.

Payable warrants issued against the respondents were subsequently cancelled after they appeared before the Ahmedabad court on July 30, 2025. Bail was granted upon their appearance, with the respondents claiming, among other things, that no summons had been served on them. The cancellation of warrants and grant of bail were procedural events and are not disclosed as findings on the invoice allegations.

What is Karamtara's response to the CBI invoice allegations?

Karamtara's stated position is that its transactions with JPCL were genuine commercial dealings conducted in the ordinary course of business. In the September 19, 2025 application, Karamtara and the three individuals also contend that the allegations are unsupported by evidence and result from a mischaracterisation of bona fide commercial transactions.

That defence directly contests the CBI's description of invoices associated with the three 2013 letters of credit. The prospectus does not reproduce contracts, invoices, banking documents, witness evidence or the reasoning in the supplementary chargesheet. It therefore records competing positions rather than providing material that establishes whether the underlying transactions were genuine.

The legal outcome remains unresolved because the Gujarat High Court had not decided the quashing application as of the prospectus date. Karamtara's request depends on the court accepting its arguments that the JPCL dealings were ordinary commercial transactions and that the allegations do not warrant continuation of the proceedings.

How does the CBI case compare with Karamtara's other criminal matters?

The CBI case is one of three criminal proceedings disclosed against Karamtara, but it is the only one involving a CBI supplementary chargesheet and alleged non-genuine invoices. The other disclosed matters concern a BS Limited complaint involving an Rs 36.40 lakh adjustment and a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence inquiry into export-benefit claims.

BS Limited, which subsequently entered liquidation, filed its complaint on November 11, 2014. The complaint alleges offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC in connection with Karamtara's adjustment of Rs 36.40 lakh relating to supplied goods; a case was registered by Banjara Hills Police Station on February 10, 2015, and remains pending.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jaipur matter is described as an inquiry, not a chargesheet. Its December 12, 2025 summons sought documents on alleged wrongful availment of the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products, or RoDTEP, Scheme for goods exported under customs tariff heading 73181500 from December 15, 2022; Karamtara submitted information in its January 2, 2026 reply.

Karamtara's litigation policy explains why the CBI matter is reported despite no stated transaction amount. Its board adopted a materiality policy on August 25, 2026 under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, or SEBI ICDR Regulations, and the policy separately requires disclosure of criminal proceedings; Rs 7.846 crore was the stated threshold for certain other litigation categories.

Conclusion

Karamtara's pending CBI case centres on the allegation that JPCL submitted non-genuine invoices to a bank against three letters of credit opened in Karamtara's favour in 2013. The October 17, 2024 supplementary chargesheet identifies allegations under four IPC sections, while Karamtara, Tanveer Singh, Prasanta Kumar Nath and Suresh Maheshwari maintain that the dealings were genuine commercial transactions.

The next disclosed development to watch is a decision by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on the September 19, 2025 quashing application. Until the court rules, the July 30, 2025 cancellation of payable warrants and grant of bail do not resolve the alleged invoices, and Karamtara continues to describe the proceeding as pending.