The Investor, the Recordings, and a Battle Spanning Three Cities

A businessman who allegedly claims influence over the Economic Offences Wing — and the power to decide the fate of companies he invests in — now sits at the centre of an expanding legal and corporate dispute spanning Surat, Delhi and Bengaluru.

The Allegations Against Nanda

According to the promoters of a Surat-based family entertainment park, recordings in their possession capture investor Nikhil Nanda allegedly making a series of threatening assertions during a conversation about a new venture. In those recordings — which have not yet been independently verified in court — Nanda is purportedly heard claiming he can "control" outcomes within enforcement agencies, and warning that he could replicate what he claimed to have done in another high-profile startup, Zepto.

The promoters further allege that, in the same conversation, Nanda claimed to have extracted approximately Rs 14.5 crore from Zepto as part of a settlement, and that the remarks were made to pressure them amid ongoing disagreements over investment terms, control and exit rights.

How the Dispute Began

These claims form part of a broader and increasingly complex dispute between the Mahindru family, which runs the Surat park, and Nanda, who entered the business as an investor in December 2025.

According to the Mahindru siblings, the relationship began with an equity deal in which Nanda acquired a 35 percent stake for roughly Rs 15.75 crore. They allege that Nanda subsequently carried out a fraudulent transaction in their company, Let's Jump Trampoline Pvt Ltd. When Rajat Mahindru discovered this, he says he immediately wrote to Nanda demanding the transaction be reversed and sought an exit. He alleges Nanda then offered him a commission to stay quiet, which he refused — insisting the transaction was illegal — and subsequently wrote to SEBI flagging the alleged fraud.

When the Mahindrus attempted to unwind the partnership and regain control, they claim Nanda refused to return the stake or agree to an exit.

A Second Venture, a Similar Pattern

The Mahindrus allege a comparable pattern emerged in a proposed Bengaluru venture, where a similar stake arrangement was discussed. According to them, this later turned into a demand for Rs 40 crore to exit — against the roughly Rs 14.5 crore Nanda had invested — with Nanda citing losses.

Nanda's Counter-Version

Nanda's side has presented a sharply different account through complaints and FIR filings in Delhi and Surat. In this version, the investment was made on the basis of assurances of a 37.5 percent stake, while he says he received only 35 percent — a shortfall of 2.5 percent — along with assurances of operational readiness and regulatory compliance that his complaint alleges were misleading.

The original promoters maintain these claims have no documentary basis and call them "a figment of his imagination." They further allege that Nanda wields influence over the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The FIR names Purple Rock Infra Pvt Ltd and Woop Amusement Pvt Ltd, and includes allegations of cheating, misappropriation, forgery and criminal conspiracy — claiming funds were diverted, project risks concealed, and the agreed governance structure not honoured. A forensic review cited in the complaint reportedly points to suspected financial irregularities, including off-the-books transactions — claims that remain to be tested through investigation and judicial scrutiny.

Operations Stalled

The dispute has moved beyond contractual disagreement into a multi-front legal battle. The appointment of a Resolution Professional (RP) has, according to the promoters, effectively stalled the Surat park's operations since mid-April, raising concerns over revenue loss and operational continuity.

At its core, the case straddles two parallel tracks: civil questions around equity, loans, shareholder rights and exit mechanisms; and criminal allegations that hinge on intent — whether the investment was a legitimate but failed business arrangement, or was secured through deception and coercion.

The recordings cited by the promoters — particularly the alleged claims of influence over enforcement agencies and references to prior settlements — could become a critical piece of evidence if formally submitted and authenticated during investigation.

A Familiar Pattern, Say Critics

Sources point to a pattern they say has recurred across Nanda's past dealings. They cite his alleged role in a case involving roughly Rs 206 crore extracted from P&G India following an FIR against its top management, as well as his alleged involvement in the IRS officer Ashutosh Verma case and the Zepto matter. In some of these cases, according to these accounts, Nanda avoided prosecution by turning approver — cooperating with investigators in exchange for immunity. None of these allegations have been independently verified for this article, and Nanda has not publicly responded to them in this context.

The SEBI Warrants Case

Beyond the current Surat–Bengaluru dispute, Nikhil Nanda — promoter and managing director of NSE- and BSE-listed JHS Svendgaard Laboratories — has a documented regulatory history with SEBI over how he acquired shares in his own company.

The case traces back to September 2015, when an extraordinary general meeting of JHS Svendgaard passed a special resolution to issue 3.59 crore fully convertible warrants on a preferential basis. In January 2016, the company's board resolved to allot 1.5 crore of these warrants to Nanda at an issue price of Rs 11 each, convertible into an equivalent number of equity shares over three financial years.

SEBI alleged that the manner in which these warrants were converted into equity resulted in a default under Regulation 3(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 — the rule governing how much stake an acquirer can pick up without triggering an open offer to other shareholders. Rather than contest the finding, Nanda filed a suo motu settlement application (No. 3384/2017) with SEBI.

On July 15, 2020, SEBI passed a settlement order disposing of the matter, with Nanda paying Rs 37.42 lakh in settlement charges. The order recorded that the defaults were "settled qua the applicant," closing proceedings without requiring SEBI to make a final finding of guilt — a standard feature of the settlement route, which lets a party resolve regulatory action without either admitting or denying the violation.

The Ashutosh Verma Case: A Documented, But Unrelated, Connection

Separately from the Surat–Bengaluru dispute, Nikhil Nanda's name also appears in the public record of a money-laundering case involving Ashutosh Verma, a former IRS officer who once served as Deputy Director (Investigations) in the Income Tax department. The case has no bearing on the current dispute — it concerns a 2008 land deal in Goa — but it does establish a documented, decade-and-a-half-old link between Nanda and Verma.

The underlying allegation, per the Enforcement Directorate, was that Verma diluted an income-tax "Appraisal Report" to benefit arms dealer Suresh Nanda and his son Sanjeev Nanda — no relation to Nikhil Nanda — in exchange for illegal gratification, which Verma allegedly used to buy land at Morgim, Goa, routed through a company called Nitya Resorts Pvt Ltd.

By his own sworn testimony in the case, Nikhil Nanda's role was that of a facilitator, not a participant in the alleged bribery. He introduced Verma to Amit Saxena, a Goa-based hotelier, whose company Nitya Resorts was then used as the vehicle for the land purchase. Nanda also helped arrange a Rs 2 crore share-capital entry into that company and later mediated a dispute between Saxena and Verma over the deal. He testified that he understood the money to be proceeds from the sale of Verma's "ancestral land."

The SEBI Warrants Case (Verified Against the Original Order)

Nikhil Nanda, promoter of NSE- and BSE-listed JHS Svendgaard Laboratories Limited, settled a regulatory action with SEBI in 2020 over how he acquired shares in his own company — a matter distinct from both the Ashutosh Verma case and the current Surat–Bengaluru dispute.

The case originated at an extraordinary general meeting on September 1, 2015, where JHS Svendgaard's shareholders passed a special resolution authorising the issue of 3,59,04,748 fully convertible warrants on a preferential basis. On January 8, 2016, the company's board resolved to allot 1,50,00,000 of these warrants to Nanda, at a face value of Rs 10 and an issue price of Rs 11 each, to be converted into an equal number of equity shares in tranches over three financial years.

According to Nanda's own submission to SEBI, 58,50,000 warrants were due for conversion in financial year 2016-17, but only 8,50,000 were actually converted that year — a shortfall he attributed to "an inadvertent error." This partial, off-schedule conversion resulted in an alleged default of Regulation 3(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 — the rule that governs how much stake a promoter can acquire incrementally without triggering a mandatory open offer to other shareholders.

Rather than contest the finding, Nanda filed a suo motu settlement application (No. 3384/2017). In his submission, he represented to SEBI that:

public shareholders would not have been affected had the original conversion schedule been followed,

the weighted average market price at the time of filing was higher than the open-offer price that would have applied, and

shareholders were not, in fact, harmed by the manner of conversion.

SEBI's High Powered Advisory Committee accepted these terms on May 29, 2020, and on July 15, 2020, the regulator passed a settlement order closing the matter after Nanda paid Rs 37,41,794 in settlement charges — confirmed as received via UTR dated June 16, 2020. The order explicitly states the default is "settled qua the applicant," and — importantly — SEBI reserved the right to reopen the matter if any of Nanda's representations are later found untrue.

Where It Stands

For now, both sides accuse the other of misrepresentation, financial pressure and bad faith. The Mahindru family maintains it was drawn into an arrangement that became coercive and impossible to exit; Nanda's filings argue the complainants misled him into investing in a structurally and operationally compromised project.

Until investigative agencies examine the recordings, financial trails and corporate records in detail, the dispute remains what it has increasingly become: a high-stakes battle over money and control, shadowed by unproven allegations of influence that — if proven — could significantly raise the stakes.