Supreme Court approves Rs 5,100 crore Sterling Biotech settlement

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate attached assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 belonging to the promoters of the Sterling/Sandesara Group, who a special court has declared fugitive economic offenders under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The promoters named in the actions are Nitin Sandesara, Chetan Sandesara, Dipti Sandesara and Hitesh Kumar Narendrabhai Patel, associated with Sterling Biotech Ltd and the wider Sterling group.

The Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 12 October 2021, recorded that the "Promoters of Sterling/Sandesara Group have been declared as fugitive economic offenders under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 having total outstanding of approximately Rs.14,508 crores payable to Indian banks." The lending was led by a consortium in which the erstwhile Andhra Bank was the lead bank.

The most recent movement is a settlement rather than a verdict. As recorded by the Calcutta High Court in a judgment dated 6 January 2026, the Supreme Court approved a one-time settlement on 19 November 2025 "subject to deposit of Rs. 5100 crores as indicated towards full and final settlement with the lender banks", with a deadline of 17 December 2025.

Two points follow from the record and frame everything below. First, a provisional attachment and a fugitive-offender declaration are preventive steps, not findings of guilt. Second, the loan-related allegations against the promoters have not been tested at a trial; the matter has moved towards closure through settlement, not conviction.

How It Worked

The case arises from loans that Sterling Biotech and connected entities drew from a consortium of public-sector banks led by the erstwhile Andhra Bank. Per the CBI and Enforcement Directorate cases, the borrowings were obtained on inflated valuations and supporting documents that the agencies allege were not genuine, and the proceeds were layered through a large network of domestic and overseas entities and routed out of India. Those allegations remain untested at trial.

The agencies allege that the group built its overseas footprint across several jurisdictions and that money moved outward as the domestic accounts turned bad. The promoters left India in 2017. The CBI registered its case and the Enforcement Directorate opened a money-laundering investigation, under which, per its attachment orders, it treated identified assets in India and abroad as connected to the defaulted loans.

The Enforcement Directorate then attached assets under the PMLA. In one linked matter, the Bombay High Court recorded that the Deputy Director of the Directorate had attached residential property at Juhu in Mumbai and land near Bengaluru on a finding that specific sums had been received from the Sterling/Sandesara Group; that illustrates how the attachment power reaches assets said to represent the proceeds of the alleged offence.

With the promoters outside the country, the state moved under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, and a special court declared them fugitive economic offenders under Section 4 of that Act. Separately, the corporate insolvency of Sterling Biotech took its own course: the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, by an order dated 28 August 2019, allowed the withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code after the committee of creditors approved a settlement proposal with more than 90 per cent voting share.

Who Lost Money

The creditors are a consortium of public-sector banks led by the erstwhile Andhra Bank. The Bombay High Court recorded the group's total outstanding to Indian banks at approximately Rs 14,508 crore, the figure the FEO declaration itself carried.

That headline exposure is a claim figure, not a sum handed back. Recovery in this matter has run along two tracks: the sale and management of assets attached by the Enforcement Directorate, and the court-approved settlement of the bank dues. The Supreme Court's November 2025 order set the settlement at Rs 5,100 crore for full and final settlement with the lender banks, a sum well below the total outstanding the banks had claimed.

How that settlement money is shared among the individual consortium lenders is being worked out in downstream proceedings. The Calcutta High Court judgment of 6 January 2026, for instance, dealt with the distribution attributable to Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure Ltd, recording settlement funds of Rs 973.35 crore for that entity's lenders. As with most large recovery cases, depositors and the public interest sit behind the banks, which absorb the shortfall between the claim and the settlement.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, none of the promoters has been convicted in the bank-loan or money-laundering matters. The current position, and the reason this file has moved, is the Supreme Court's approval on 19 November 2025 of a one-time settlement requiring a deposit of Rs 5,100 crore by 17 December 2025 towards full and final settlement with the lender banks. The Supreme Court, as recorded by the Calcutta High Court, conditioned the closure of the loan-related litigation on that deposit, directing that the "litigation with respect to the loan amount...shall be put to end by way of full and final settlement."

A settlement of this kind resolves the money owed to the banks; it is not a finding that the promoters committed the offences alleged, and it must not be read as an admission of guilt. The provisional attachments and the fugitive-offender declaration remain steps taken by the agencies, and the criminal proceedings were being brought to a close through settlement rather than through a trial verdict.

A provisional attachment, a fugitive-offender declaration and a chargesheet contain allegations and preventive measures, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Readers can follow how comparable matters unfold through the Oquilia enforcement archive.

What It Means

The matter shows how three separate legal tracks can run over the same default. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code deals with the company, the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and the PMLA deal with the promoters and their assets, and a settlement can eventually draw the threads together. Each track answers a different question, and none of them is a criminal conviction on the underlying loan allegations.

For anyone reading a recovery headline, the practical point is the gap between a claim and a settlement. Banks here claimed roughly Rs 14,508 crore, while the court-approved settlement was Rs 5,100 crore; the difference is the discount lenders accepted to close a cross-border matter that might otherwise have run for years. A provisional attachment freezes assets while the adjudicating authority decides whether to confirm it, and money reaches lenders through a supervised process rather than in a single transfer. Comparable dynamics are visible in other fugitive-offender and attachment files, such as the recovery from Vijay Mallya's attached assets and the ED attachment in the Raheja Developers homebuyer case.

The broader lesson is that a settlement closes the financial dispute without settling the question of guilt, which in this matter was never decided by a trial court.

FAQ

Were the Sandesaras found guilty?

No. None of the promoters has been convicted in the bank-loan or money-laundering matters. They were declared fugitive economic offenders, which is a preventive status under the 2018 Act, not a finding of guilt, and in November 2025 the Supreme Court approved a settlement of the bank dues rather than any court recording a verdict.

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A provisional attachment, a fugitive-offender declaration and a chargesheet contain allegations and preventive measures, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. A settlement of the bank dues is not an admission of guilt.

What did the Supreme Court approve?

Per the Calcutta High Court judgment of 6 January 2026, the Supreme Court approved a one-time settlement on 19 November 2025 requiring a deposit of Rs 5,100 crore by 17 December 2025 towards full and final settlement with the lender banks, and directed that the litigation over the loan amount be brought to an end through that settlement.

What is a fugitive economic offender?

It is a status under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. A special court may declare a person a fugitive economic offender where a warrant has issued for a scheduled offence involving Rs 100 crore or more and the person has left India to avoid prosecution. The declaration allows attached assets to be dealt with while the person remains abroad.

Have the banks recovered their money?

Recovery has come through the sale of attached assets and the court-approved settlement of Rs 5,100 crore, against a claimed outstanding of roughly Rs 14,508 crore. How the settlement is shared among the consortium lenders is being finalised in subsequent proceedings, so individual banks receive their shares over time.

Where can I read the official record?

The Bombay High Court judgment of 12 October 2021 and the Calcutta High Court judgment of 6 January 2026 are on Indian Kanoon, linked below, along with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal order of 28 August 2019 in the insolvency matter.

This report is based on the Bombay High Court judgment dated 12 October 2021 recording the fugitive-offender declaration, the Calcutta High Court judgment dated 6 January 2026 recording the Supreme Court's one-time settlement and the NCLAT order of 28 August 2019 in the Sterling Biotech insolvency, reviewed on 31 July 2026.