In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court by Mandke Foundation, a company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in charitable activities by running the Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute at Mumbai, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the petition holding that no enforceable right had been made out by the petitioner.
The petitioner’s grievance was that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) (respondent 2) initiated an investigation involving some companies as per orders dated 30.10.2025 and 12.11.2025 by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) (respondent 1). However, the respondents neither furnished copies of the said orders nor the material forming the basis thereof, despite requiring the petitioner to participate in the investigation and provision of extensive information.
On 11.04.2026, the SFIO issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 217 of the Act, stating that an investigation into the affairs of Reliance Home Finance Limited and certain other companies had been directed under Section 212 of the Act. The petitioner submitted that on 05-06-2026, it submitted a detailed response expressing its willingness to cooperate with the investigation, but requested copies of the MCA’s orders. Even then, SFIO continued the investigation and, by summons dated 20-07-2026, called upon the petitioner’s present Director Tina A. Ambani and its former Director Jai Anshul A. Ambani to appear before the SFIO. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
The Court noted that the SFIO proceedings were presently at a preliminary stage and that the notice dated 11-04-2026 only called upon the petitioner to furnish information as well as documents under Section 217 of the Act. It was also noted that the said notice mentioned that the Central Government had directed an investigation into the affairs of Reliance Home Finance Limited and other related companies. The Court stated that the petitioner was informed that it was found that it had directly or indirectly had financial transactions with the companies under investigation.
Therefore, the Court refused to agree that the petitioner was left completely unaware of the nature or purpose of the information sought as the petitioner was also informed of the categories of documents required to be produced. The Court also found that the petitioner did not furnish the information even after its detailed reply dated 05-06-2026, and that summons was only issued after the petitioner’s failure to furnish the information.
The Court found merit in the respondents’ contention that the MCA orders contained sensitive information regarding a larger investigation and that premature disclosure could prejudice connected cases and investigations extending beyond the petitioner. The Court opined that no enforceable right had been made out by the petitioner to seek disclosure of the MCA orders at this preliminary stage, but left it open for the petitioner to avail legal remedies if any prejudicial action is taken at a subsequent stage. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
