CBI raids Mumbai in ₹58 crore SBI fraud case against Avaya Industries
Synopsis
The CBI moved against two separate corporate banking fraud cases on the same day — raiding Mumbai premises linked to Avaya Industries over an alleged ₹58.48 crore SBI fraud, while simultaneously booking directors of Chandra Proteco Limited in a ₹210 crore multi-bank fraud. The twin actions signal a sharper enforcement push against mid-tier corporate loan defaulters.
Key Takeaways
The CBI searched multiple Mumbai locations on 29 October 2026 in a ₹58.48 crore bank fraud case against Avaya Industries and its directors.
The case was registered based on a complaint from State Bank of India (SBI), Mumbai , alleging fraudulent credit facilities through misrepresentation.
Alleged methods included fictitious sales , inflated stocks , fund diversion, fabricated debtor balances, and misrepresentation of mortgaged assets.
Incriminating documents were seized and are being examined to establish the full extent of the conspiracy.
In a separate case, the CBI booked directors Ranjeet Gupta , Anilesh Gupta , and Aparna Gupta of Chandra Proteco Limited in an alleged ₹210 crore fraud involving five banks , based on an Indian Bank complaint.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday, 29 October 2026, conducted search operations across multiple locations in Mumbai in connection with an alleged ₹58.48 crore bank fraud involving Avaya Industries, a Mumbai-based company, and its directors. Incriminating documents relevant to the investigation were seized during the searches, according to an official statement.
What Triggered the CBI Action
The CBI registered the case based on a complaint filed by the State Bank of India (SBI), Mumbai, against Avaya Industries, its directors, and unknown public servants and private persons. According to the complaint, the accused allegedly obtained credit facilities from the bank through misrepresentation, causing a wrongful loss of ₹58.48 crore to the lender.
How the Fraud Was Allegedly Carried Out
The CBI's statement details a multi-layered scheme. The accused allegedly resorted to fictitious sales and inflated stock entries, suppression and non-recovery of export receivables, and diversion of funds through unsecured advances. Additionally, transactions were reportedly routed unauthorisedly through another bank, debtor balances were fabricated, and mortgaged property and hypothecated assets were allegedly sold off or misrepresented — all resulting in the wrongful loss to SBI.
Searches at Residential Premises
Search operations were carried out at several locations in Mumbai, including residential properties linked to the directors of Avaya Industries. The seized materials are currently being examined to establish the full extent of the alleged conspiracy, misappropriation, and diversion of funds, and to determine the roles of all individuals involved, the CBI said.
Separate ₹210 Crore Fraud Case Against Chandra Proteco
In a separate development, the CBI also registered a case based on a complaint by Indian Bank's Stressed Asset Management Branch against Chandra Proteco Limited and its officials in an alleged ₹210 crore fraud spanning five banks. The agency booked the company's directors — Ranjeet Gupta, Anilesh Gupta, and Aparna Gupta — along with unknown public servants and private persons, for offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and violations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This case broadens the scope of the CBI's ongoing action against alleged corporate banking fraud in the country.
Broader Context
These actions come as Indian investigative agencies have intensified scrutiny of non-performing assets (NPAs) and bank fraud cases involving mid-sized companies. The SBI, as India's largest public-sector lender, has been among the most active complainants in fraud referrals to the CBI in recent years. Notably, both cases — involving SBI and Indian Bank — reflect a pattern of alleged fund diversion through complex financial instruments, a recurring methodology in such investigations. The outcome of the document examination is expected to shape the next phase of arrests and charge-sheeting.
Point of View
Fabricating debtor balances, and misrepresenting mortgaged assets are not opportunistic moves but structured schemes, suggesting pre-meditated planning over an extended period. Public-sector banks remain the primary victims in such cases, and the SBI's role as a complainant is telling — the lender is under internal pressure to reduce its NPA overhang. The real accountability test will come at the charge-sheet and trial stage, where past CBI bank fraud cases have often stalled.
NationPress
29 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the CBI's case against Avaya Industries?
The CBI registered a case against Avaya Industries and its directors following a complaint from State Bank of India, Mumbai, alleging that the company fraudulently obtained credit facilities through misrepresentation, causing a wrongful loss of ₹58.48 crore to the bank. The alleged fraud involved fictitious sales, inflated stocks, fund diversion, and misrepresentation of mortgaged assets.
What did the CBI find during the Mumbai searches?
During search operations at multiple Mumbai locations — including residential premises linked to Avaya Industries' directors — the CBI recovered incriminating documents relevant to the investigation. These materials are being examined to determine the full extent of the alleged conspiracy and the role of all persons involved.
What is the Chandra Proteco case registered by the CBI?
The CBI registered a separate case against Chandra Proteco Limited and its directors — Ranjeet Gupta, Anilesh Gupta, and Aparna Gupta — based on a complaint from Indian Bank's Stressed Asset Management Branch. The alleged fraud amounts to ₹210 crore spread across five banks, with charges including criminal conspiracy, cheating, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
How did Avaya Industries allegedly commit the bank fraud?
According to the CBI, Avaya Industries allegedly used multiple methods: fictitious sales, inflated stock entries, suppression of export receivables, diversion of funds through unsecured advances, unauthorised routing of transactions through another bank, fabrication of debtor balances, and unauthorised sale or misrepresentation of mortgaged and hypothecated assets.
What happens next in the CBI's investigation?
The seized documents are currently under examination to establish the full extent of the alleged misappropriation and the roles of all individuals involved. The findings are expected to guide the next steps of the investigation, including potential arrests and the filing of a charge sheet.
