MUMBAI: A former managing director of Provogue India Ltd has accused a resolution professional, ex-colleagues and several business associates of orchestrating a years-long scheme that allegedly depressed the company’s value during insolvency, concealed foreign assets, and siphoned dues from export clients.
Provogue’s Collapse and a Trail of Suspicion
When Provogue India Ltd entered insolvency proceedings nearly a decade after a fire crippled its Daman factory, few expected the retail brand once a mainstay in Indian malls to reappear in police case files. But according to a complaint filed by Nikhil Chaturvedi, the company’s former managing director, the years following the 2014 fire created an opening for what he describes as a coordinated effort to cheat him of nearly ₹90 crore.
The company’s troubles began after its loan account turned into a Non-Performing Asset. Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the case, and Amit Gupta was appointed the Resolution Professional (RP), responsible for overseeing the restructuring process and managing all affairs until a resolution could be achieved.
Chaturvedi remained deeply involved even after stepping away from day-to-day operations; he was not only a director but also a guarantor on the company’s bank loans and its major shareholder until liquidation.
Inside the Insolvency Process
In the years that followed, Chaturvedi claims he observed widening gaps between the company’s declared value and what he believed its assets and receivables were actually worth. According to his complaint, Gupta, the RP, allegedly delayed the auction of assets, allowing the company’s valuation to drop sharply. The artificially depressed value, he argues, ultimately benefited the buyers who acquired Provogue in the liquidation e-auction.
The complaint further alleges that Gupta neither conducted valuation exercises diligently nor preserved relevant documentation, contravening the RP’s statutory responsibilities. Provogue was eventually purchased by Plutus Investments and Holdings Private Limited. But by then, according to the complainant, a significant portion of the company’s value particularly its overseas subsidiary had been obscured from official scrutiny.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
The Hong Kong Subsidiary and a Web of Relationships
A central claim in the case revolves around Elite Team Hong Kong, a Provogue subsidiary that, as per its 2017 balance sheet, owned assets valued at ₹54.7 crore, including two immovable properties in Hong Kong. Chaturvedi alleges these assets were concealed by an internal clique consisting of former employees and associates.
The complaint states that from 2018–2019 and again in 2022–2023, despite ₹32 crore still due from export clients, “suspicious” new export transactions continued to appear in the books. Chaturvedi maintains that some of these deals involved clients who had not cleared earlier dues.
He also alleges that RP Amit Gupta had remained in frequent touch with former company employee Sameer Khandelwal, while Khandelwal was in communication with former director Rakesh Rawat. In 2025, one of Elite Team Hong Kong’s properties was reportedly sold to Arpit Khandelwal—identified as the owner of Plutus Investments and Holdings—for “crores of rupees,” a transaction the complainant suggests was irregular.
The Case and the Charges Ahead
After reviewing the complaint, the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai police registered a case under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal breach of trust (406), cheating (420), conspiracy (120B) and common intention (34). Those named include Amit Gupta, Sameer Khandelwal, Rakesh Rawat, Arpit Khandelwal and Plutus Investments and Holdings Private Limited.
A police officer familiar with the case confirmed that Chaturvedi, 55, had filed the complaint and that investigators are scrutinizing transactions carried out during the insolvency and liquidation phases. For now, the allegations remain under investigation, and none of the accused have publicly responded. But the case highlights a broader tension within India’s insolvency framework—where corporate distress, opaque accounting, and personal relationships often collide, leaving courts and investigators to untangle years of commercial decisions and private communications.
