For nearly a decade, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. (CIFCL), the flagship financial arm of the 125-year-old Murugappa Group, has sat at the center of an intricate web of financial transactions involving group companies, privately held promoter entities, senior executives and family members, according to a detailed investigation released on Tuesday by Cobrapost.
Based on statutory filings, annual reports and other public disclosures, Cobrapost estimates that more than ₹10,000 crore moved through related-party arrangements involving CIFCL and Murugappa-linked entities, while cash deposits totaling roughly ₹25,000 crore were made across 14 banks over the past six years. The scale of these flows, the report argues, raises fundamental questions about transparency, disclosure norms and regulatory oversight in a systemically important lender that manages large volumes of public and institutional capital.
CIFCL, a listed non-banking financial company (NBFC), reported outstanding liabilities of over ₹2 lakh crore as of March 2025, most of it borrowed from banks, financial institutions and the public. Against that backdrop, Cobrapost contends, the nature and opacity of certain transactions merit closer scrutiny by regulators and shareholders alike.
Related Parties, Partial Disclosures and “Creative Accounting”
At the center of the investigation are payments routed to entities such as Chola Business Services Ltd. (CBSL), Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. (CMGICL), and Murugappa Management Services, a privately held promoter-controlled firm. Cobrapost’s analysis suggests that CBSL alone received over ₹4,100 crore from CIFCL since 2015, largely recorded as work contracts and staffing services, while CMGICL is said to have paid around ₹3,040 crore to Murugappa Group entities since 2017.
Murugappa Management Services, described as a key conduit, allegedly received about ₹675 crore from 17 group companies over eight years, before distributing large sums onward to family members, senior executives, related companies, professional firms and even sports bodies and non-profits.
While the cumulative value of such related-party transactions identified by Cobrapost exceeds ₹10,000 crore, the report notes that publicly disclosed related-party transactions across CIFCL and CMGICL filings amount to only about ₹2,161 crore. Many payments, though recorded as professional fees, commissions or work contracts, do not appear to have been disclosed as related-party transactions, raising questions under the Companies Act, SEBI’s listing regulations and Indian accounting standards.
Cobrapost characterizes several of these arrangements as instances of “creative accounting,” arguing that classification choices may have obscured the true nature of relationships and flows of money.
Cash Deposits, Insurance Ties and Questions of Compliance
Beyond related-party payments, the investigation highlights cash deposits of approximately ₹25,000 crore made by CIFCL across multiple banks between 2020-21 and 2024-25. While the company operates in lending and insurance distribution, the sheer volume of cash transactions flagged by Cobrapost has prompted questions about internal controls and compliance practices at a large, regulated NBFC.
The report also draws attention to CIFCL’s insurance commission income—nearly ₹942 crore in a single recent year—and its close business ties with CMGICL, a related insurer. Cobrapost raises the question of whether insurance products may have been bundled with vehicle or home loans, a practice restricted under insurance regulations, though no regulatory finding on this issue has been made public.
Payments to credit rating agencies, auditors, trade bodies and religious organizations also feature in the report. In some cases, fees paid to rating agencies appear unusually high relative to industry norms, the investigation suggests, potentially creating perceived conflicts of interest.
Corporate Response and a Broader Governance Debate
In response to Cobrapost’s detailed questionnaire, the Chola Secretariat said that all transactions were conducted “as per the laws of the land” and in compliance with regulatory guidelines, adding that the group would respond to appropriate authorities if required. The statement warned against what it described as attempts to “tarnish the image” of the group, though it did not address specific questions raised in the investigation.
Cobrapost has rejected any suggestion of impropriety in its reporting and described the response as an attempt to intimidate journalists. No regulatory authority has yet announced a formal probe based on the findings.
Still, the investigation has reopened a broader debate about governance standards in India’s financial sector, particularly among large, listed NBFCs that rely heavily on public and institutional borrowing. For minority shareholders, lenders and regulators, the issues raised go beyond one company, touching on how related-party relationships are structured, disclosed and monitored—and whether existing oversight mechanisms are adequate for institutions that play a critical role in India’s credit system.
As scrutiny intensifies, the Cobrapost findings are likely to add pressure on regulators to examine whether the lines between compliance, disclosure and accountability have grown too thin in parts of India’s rapidly expanding financial landscape.
