The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against Future Retail Limited, Kishore Biyani, Rakesh Biyani and others following State Bank of India's complaint concerning an alleged ₹904.32 crore loss. The case was registered on 4 November 2026; Mumbai searches were reported on 6 November. Allegations remain under investigation and have not been established in court.
What the investigation concerns
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a criminal case following a complaint from State Bank of India (SBI), Stressed Assets Management Branch-III, Mumbai, over credit facilities associated with Future Retail Limited. Reports published on 6 November 2026 cite the agency in identifying ₹904.32 crore as the alleged wrongful loss to SBI. This amount is a claim under investigation, not a final judicial finding.
Future Retail, its promoters Kishore Biyani and Rakesh Biyani, unknown public servants and other individuals are mentioned in the reported case. Allegations concern conspiracy, cheating and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being named in an FIR does not establish criminal liability.
FIR, loan facilities and searches
The reports say the CBI registered the case on 4 November 2026. On 6 November 2026, searches were conducted at multiple Mumbai premises associated with the company’s promoters and directors. The agency said it recovered and seized documents relevant to its inquiry; seizure of documents is not proof of guilt.
The complaint concerns working capital, term loans and letters of credit reportedly obtained from SBI and a consortium of nine banks. According to the investigators’ allegations, some funds were not used for the sanctioned purposes and were instead routed through associated or connected entities. The precise flow of funds and individual responsibilities remain under investigation.
What the ₹904.32 crore figure does and does not mean
The reported ₹904.32 crore represents the wrongful loss SBI alleges in its complaint. It is not an amount recovered, an established court award or a verified loss figure for each lender in the consortium. The inspected reports do not provide independently verified exposure and recovery positions for all participating banks.
Relevance for credit, compliance and recovery officers
For bankers managing corporate advances, consortium lending, stressed accounts and recovery, the case highlights practical questions concerning end-use monitoring, related-party transactions, preservation of sanction and disbursement records, and timely reconciliation between lending institutions. These are professional lessons suggested by the nature of the allegation, not evidence that a specific bank employee or internal control failed in this case.
Investigators must establish what happened to the proceeds and the involvement, if any, of each person concerned. Whether charges are ultimately filed, what a court concludes and what sums banks may recover are all separate future questions.
Legal status and verification limits
As reported on 6 November, the matter was at the investigation stage, following an FIR and searches. These inspected news reports relay statements attributed to the CBI. The original FIR and underlying search documents were not independently reviewed, nor was an authoritative response from the named company or individuals established in those sources. This account does not treat allegations as convictions.
Sources and References
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion