Interim Order 36

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 10
CC No. 5/2024
CBI v. M/s Heyee Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (HGEPL) & Ors.
CNR: DLCT11-000008-2024
12.02.2026
Present: Sh. M. Saraswat, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.
1.) On 13.05.2024, the Ld. Predecessor Judge of this
Court had issued notice to the IO to furnish clarifications in
respect of lapses in the investigation which as per his opinion
had not been answered in the charge-sheet and appeared to be
detrimental to the case of prosecution. Thereafter, on behalf of
of CBI, replies were filed in response to orders dated 13.05.2024
on 08.07.2024, 14.08.2024 and on 31.05.2024. In continuation
of previous court orders dated 13.5.2024, on 26.08.2025 the
present Court had passed a detailed order on the basis of the
above stated replies filed by CBI after seeking clarifications from
the IO on various dates from time to time. In its order dated
26.08.2025, this Court had
inter alia observed that investigation
conducted had failed to explain the role of
“beneficiaries” of the
forged 34 bank guarantees. The Court had also remarked that
while investigating the matter, CBI had not cared to explain the
bona fide of the actions of the “
entities’ in subcontracting the
tender work including the work of procurement of the bank
guarantees to parties not privy to the contract/tender. During
investigation, IO had recorded the statements of Authorized
Representatives of these entities who stated before him ( u/s 161
CrPC) that they were aware that the terms of the tender contract
of NHIDCL precluded them subcontracting the work to private
-- 1 of 10 --
Page 2 of 10
third parties, therefore this court directed CBI to explain as to
how the actions of the above noted entities were not designed to
cheat the complainant/ NHIDCL . It was also remarked by the
Court in its order that the legality of the business transactions
carried out between the accused Elangbam Ranananada with
Private Individuals namely Luckson Sumi and Ghunavi Aye and
various financial institutions in order to obtain bank guarantees
and the circumstances under which the accused Elangbam
Ranananada was hired had not been explained in the final report
filed by CBI in the light of the allegations of cheating by
complainant. While concluding the order dated 26.08.2025, this
Court had observed that investigation should have been carried
out on the complaints dated 27.4.2023 of the NHIDCL in the
wake of their allegations that financial losses had occurred to
them on account of submission of fake bank guarantees or else
detriment would be caused to the case of the prosecution.
2.) In reply to the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by this
Court, CBI had filed a detailed reply on 20.11.2025 wherein in
paragraph No. (y) of the same, it had been stated that during
investigation, irregularities were noticed in the award of work in
the name of the contractors and further execution of 100% of the
said work by sub-contractors but it was claimed by CBI that
these irregularities were not criminal in nature as they were
found to be procedural in implementation of the terms and
conditions of the tender work by NHIDCL officials . It was also
stated in the report that there were lapses on the part of NHIDCL
officials in not over seeing and checking that no such sub
-- 2 of 10 --
Page 3 of 10
contracting of the tender work should have been allowed to go
on. In a reply of NHIDCL dated 31.7.2024 ( placed on record
with status report of CBI dated 14.08.2024) ,it was averred that
the role of NHIDCL ,Head Quarters was restricted only till
signing of the contract where after the Regional office was given
the charge for monitoring the execution of the project and for
release of payments etc .It was also stated that the fact of
induction of Sub - contractors in the project was not intimated by
AE/PMU/RO, by the Regional office at any point of time and
hence, NHIDCL ,Head Quarters were not aware of any such
incident wherein 100 percent back to back sub-contracting was
allowed in the work of this tender .
3.) Very interestingly, One Sh. GMRV Prasad ,Manager
Finance office of Executive Director -Projects , Regional Office,
NHIDCL, Kohima, Nagaland had stated to the IO during
investigation (running page No. 228 of statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.07.2023) that --
“
on being asked I further state that one Sh.
Luckson Sumi and one Sh. Ghunavi Ayee were
approaching and interacting with NHIDCL
Regional Office at Kohima, particularly finance
division, in case some financial issue was
involved. In case some advance amount against
mobilization of the project was required, both
the said person use to approach the finance
division of regional office, Kohima to pursue the
matter related to approval of the mobilization
advance by the competent authority which was
-- 3 of 10 --
Page 4 of 10
then credited into the account of the contractor
after approval of the same”.
In the same very context , contents of paragraph No. S of reply
dated 20.11.2025 of CBI placed before this court are relevant ,
which state as under -
“
Further, on receipt of physical copy of
PBG/APBG/Bank guarantees against the
mobilization advance from Elangbam Ranananda,
these were submitted to the Managing Director /
Executive Director , NHIDCL by Sh. Lukson
Sumi and Sh. Ghunavi Ayee through Covering
letters” .
4.) It is thus apparent that the officials of NHIDCL , Regional
office were being contacted by the above noted 2 private
individuals namely Luckson Sumi and Ghunavi Ayee in relation
to work of this tender and also for obtaining the mobilization
advance, hence IO should have carried out detailed investigation
on the role of NHIDCL officials at the Regional Level for
ascertaining whether the implementation of the work and
handling of matters related to mobilization advance on behalf of
the entities by the sub contractors was within their knowledge
but the same was intentionally not brought to the knowledge of
their superiors or at the level of NHIDCL Head Quarter with the
intention/ Motive to cause unlawful benefit to an in eligible party
.Furthermore , since during investigation , IO had found out that
the above mentioned 2 private individuals had been carrying out
the tender work on behalf of these entities despite rules of
-- 4 of 10 --
Page 5 of 10
NHIDCL prohibiting the same, the court cannot fathom the
grounds on which CBI has given them a clean chit in the present
matter by touting the violation as procedural especially when
NHIDCL had alleged that it was cheated by submission of fake
guarantees which were procured by accused Elangbam
Ranananda at the saying of these 2 private
individuals .Admittedly , it was the entities who were awarded
the tender who were required to submit the Bank guarantees to
NHIDCL but as per CBI investigation , they had handed over the
tender work as a sub contract to these 2 private individuals and
shared the formats in which the bank guarantees had to be
submitted for finalization of the contract . It is also admitted by
CBI that the Bank guarantees were arranged for these entities at
the behest of these 2 private individuals who were not a party to
the tender .If these entities did not have the requisite man power
and resources to carry out work for these projects , they should
have not misrepresented the same before NHIDCL. Instead by
participating in the tenders , obtaining the work and thereafter
Sub contracting the work without bringing the same in the
knowledge of the officials of NHIDCL , these entities appear to
have cheated the Government entity and it was in continuation
of this deception that fake Bank Guarantees were arranged and
submitted before NHIDCL.
5.) It is observed that IO of the case had not carried out
investigation and filed speaking charge-sheet on the aspect of
any wrongful loss that had accrued to NHIDCL on account of
submission of forged bank guarantees on the strength of which
mobilization advances were received by these entities for
-- 5 of 10 --
Page 6 of 10
execution of tender work awarded to them. It is pertinent to
mention that the complaint filed by PNB was regarding forgery
of 34 bank guarantees whereas the subject of the complaints filed
by NHIDCL dated 27.4.2023 against the entities( (i)M/s Fortune
group ,(ii)M/S Ksheerabad Constructions ,(iii) M/S Multi
Builders , (iv)M/S C Gopal Reddy , (v) M/S M D Enterprises )
was not restricted to forgery of bank guarantees only as
allegations of cheating had been raised in the said complaints.
Since during investigation, IO had found out from the
Authorized Representatives of the above noted entities as well as
private individuals Luckson Sumi and Ghunavi Ayee that they
were aware that NHIDCL did not allow subcontracting of the
tenders awarded, it is clearly discernible that the conduct of these
entities in subcontracting the work to private parties was done
either by concealment of facts or by practicing deception upon
NHIDCL or in connivance with them . It is apparent that the
forged bank guarantees submitted with NHIDCL had been done
under the authority and signatures of Authorized Representatives
of the above said entities/ Ghunavi Ayee and Luckson Sumi,
therefore CBI needs to explain how at this stage they can avoid
liability for the same . It is not in doubt that the terms of the
tender precluded the parties to award the work further to
subcontractors, therefore the mere fact that the forged bank
guarantees were obtained by violating the terms of the
contract/tender and thereafter placed on record towards
compliance of the terms of the contract/tender suggests that the
same was done with the motive to obtain wrongful benefit by
deceiving the government body.
-- 6 of 10 --
Page 7 of 10
6.) It is observed that in the statement dated 09.08.2023 of one
Ashok Kumar Jha, General Manager, Technical NHIDCL (under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by IO) it is stated by him that the
bank guarantees represent a significant contractual obligation for
banks as it guarantees a sum of money to a beneficiary in a
certain event of default. He has also explained to the IO that in a
contractual transaction, when the obligating party does not fulfill
the obligations outlined by the contract, the bank pays that
amount and the guarantee can be used to essentially insure a
party due to non-performance by the other party in a contract.
Suffice to state that a performance guarantee/bank guarantee
protects both parties in a contractual agreement from credit risk.
Perusal of the previous order sheets shows that on 01.10.2024,
the IO of the case had submitted before the Ld. Predecessor of
this Court that the advance that had been given to the parties had
been taken back and NHIDCL had reconsidered the contracts.
However, there is no conclusive finding from CBI in the charge-
sheet that despite submission of fake guarantees and
consequential reconsideration/termination of contracts, no
financial loss had accrued to NHIDCL . During investigation , IO
seems to have not examined relevant witnesses of NHIDCL to
satisfy himself that no financial losses had occurred due to
submission of fake bank guarantees by these entities . During
investigation, IO seems to have recorded the statement of official
of the NHIDCL i.e. G.M.R.V. Prasad dated 13.07.2023
(Manager-Finance Contractual, office of Executive Director
Projects, Regional office NHIDCL) who had stated that as per
present status of dues, the office had recovered the entire amount
-- 7 of 10 --
Page 8 of 10
and no dues were left to the contractor with respect of M/s.
Ksheerabad Constructions Pvt. Ltd. However in the same very
statement of this official dated 13.07.2023 under Section 161
Cr.P.C., he had stated before the IO that qua M/s. M.D.
Enterprises, balance of Rs. 3,74,38,180/- was still to be
recovered. Similarly, for M/s. C. Gopal Reddy Company, it was
averred that the amount of Rs. 1,24,02,134/- and Rs. 64,92,729/-
was still to be recovered.
7.) During the course of submissions made before this Court
by the IO, a status report was filed by CBI on 20.03.2025
wherein in paragraph No. 5 it was stated that the Contractors
namely M/s. M.D. Enterprises, M/s. C. Gopal Reddy and Co.,
and M/s. Ksheerabad Constructions had taken mobilization
advance of Rs. 37,12,92,000/- which had been recovered through
running bills and amount payable to the contractor for work
done. It was similarly stated that M/s. C. Gopal Reddy had taken
secured advance against performance guarantee amounting to Rs.
15,80,00,000/- which had been recovered through running bills
and through amount payable to the contractor for work done. The
information as disclosed in the above stated report filed by the
IO did not find mention in the final report of investigation or in
the statement of any witnesses of NHIDCL recorded during
investigation. Furthermore ,in the status report of CBI dated
20.03.2025 (supported with letter dated 17.02.2025 written by
General Manager, Technical to Deputy General Manager
Vigilance, NHIDCL) ,it was averred that as per contact clause
No. 23.9 of the tender contract agreement, the security was to be
-- 8 of 10 --
Page 9 of 10
encashed as a consequence to termination of contract but in the
present case as non genuine bank guarantee had been submitted,
the encashment could not be done and the same would have to be
claimed in the termination payment along with other
recoverables like liquidity damages, penalty on account of
pending NCRs etc by issuing the contractors a recovery notice
and if not paid, through arbitration as per contract.
8.) In the opinion of this court , the IO of the case has only
investigated the aspect of forgery of the bank guarantees by
divorcing himself from the surrounding circumstances or the
background and motive on account of which the forgery was
practiced in the present case viz a viz the role of real
beneficiaries of the tender . There is no conclusive report by the
IO that on account of submission of fake Bank guarantees , No
wrongful loss had accrued to the exchequer or to NHIDCL .
Similarly , IO had not explained the legality of the business
transactions viz a viz the tender terms wherein a paltry sum of Rs
25 crores was allegedly exchanged by Luckson Sumi and
Ghunavi Ayee for procurement of bank guarantees running into
several hundred crores of rupees for being submitted to NHIDCL
for insuring the credit risk of both parties in the tender.
9.) CBI had claimed in its reply dated 20.11.2025 that four
complaints lodged by NHIDCL against M/s.Fortune Group, M/s.
KCPL, M/s.Multi Builiders and M/s. C Gopal Reddy and
Company and Ors. And PNB appeared to be an afterthought as
the same were filed after 4 months of registration of the present
case of CBI on the basis of complaint received from PNB,
Sansad Marg Branch, New Delhi . However , IO had not
-- 9 of 10 --
Page 10 of 10
claimed that these complaints were false or baseless and did not
require investigation on the allegations of cheating on account of
deception practiced upon NHIDCL officials by these entities.
Such piecemeal investigation by the IO is not acceptable to the
court. Hence, CBI is directed to conduct further investigation in
this case in the light of the observations made in the orders dated
13.05.2024, 26.08.2025 and orders passed today. Needless to
state that CBI would investigate on the allegations levelled in
complaints dated 27.04.2023 of NHIDCL and not restrict itself
to the aspect relating to forgery of documents only.
CBI to submit report of further investigation on
30.03.2026.
A copy of this order be sent to IO for necessary
compliance.
(Chhavi Kapoor)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07
Rouse Avenue Courts: New Delhi
12.02.2026
-- 10 of 10 --