With unpaid salaries and terminal dues of staff stated to exceed Rs 400 crore, the Bombay High Court has ordered the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax authorities to investigate the Sinhgad Technical Education Society, its 44 institutions and its trustees, after finding a strong prima facie case that funds meant for staff salaries were siphoned away while employees went unpaid for years.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on November 10, 2026 called the case “unprecedented” and directed a central agency investigation into the affairs of the Pune-based Sinhgad Technical Education Society (STES). It froze the society’s bank accounts and investments and issued show cause notices for contempt to its President and Chief Managing Trustee Maruti Nivrutti Navale and seven other trustees, over unpaid salaries and terminal dues of teaching and non-teaching staff, stated to exceed Rs 400 crore [Rohini Aniruddha Mohekar v. Maruti Nivrutti Navale & connected matters].
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna passed the order in a batch of contempt petitions and writ petitions filed by employees of STES institutions, about 220 of which, the Bench noted, are before the High Court.
The directions at a glance
The Court directed:
- The CBI, the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Income Tax authorities to investigate the affairs of the 44 institutions and their trustees, with the disclosure affidavits supplied to them through the Central Government counsel.
- Earlier interim orders restraining dealings in STES and trustee properties to continue; all bank accounts and investments of STES and the trustees to remain frozen, with no dealing in their shareholdings.
- The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, to examine the returns of the institutions and the trustees.
- Show cause notices to STES and trustees Maruti Nivrutti Navale, Dr. Sunanda Maruti Navale, Dr. Rohit Maruti Navale, Dr. Rachana Alok Ashtekar, Shruti Rohit Navale, Sanjay Sadashiv Navale, Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale and Somnath Mahadeo Navale on why they should not be punished for breaching the Court’s November 6, 2026 order.
- The Education Department to take over the schools or absorb students elsewhere, an Administrator to take charge of the technical institutions, and action under the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 and the Transfer of Management Act, 1971.
- EPF authorities to examine provident fund compliance, and the Charity Commissioner to inquire into the Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
- The other trustees to deposit their passports with the Registrar (Judicial) and all trustees not to leave Pune and to report weekly at Deccan Police Station; the Pune Police Commissioner to ensure action on the existing FIRs.
A preliminary report on the investigation is to be placed before the Court on November 19, 2026, when the matters will be heard by the regular Bench. The findings recorded so far are prima facie, and the trustees will have an opportunity to answer the show cause notices and the allegations before any final determination.
“Where the money has gone”
The Court pointed out that full admissions had taken place at the institutions over the years and that students, other than reserved-category students whose fees are subsidised by the State, were paying fees. Against that background, it could not accept that 44 institutions had no money to pay basic salaries for about eight years.
“We thus have a strong prima facie case of there being materials which would indicate that amounts are being siphoned away, to the deprivation of the employees. The outstanding amounts payable to the employees are stated to be more than Rupees 400 crores.”
“The reason being that 44 full-fledged institutions routinely having no money to pay the basic salaries and/or terminal dues of its employees cannot be believed. The question is as to where the money has gone.”
Trustees’ disclosure affidavits and tax returns
Earlier in the proceedings, the trustees had been directed to file affidavits disclosing their movable and immovable assets. On reading them, the Bench found a common thread: shareholdings in several companies and co-operative banks, large advances, and what it described as “shockingly disproportionate” income tax returns. It said the possibility of funds being diverted to other businesses, or even out of the country, could not be ruled out, noting that one trustee is stated to reside in Dubai.
The Court also recorded that the process of law had been taken for granted through false affidavits of the Managing Trustee, which in its view prima facie amounted to perjury and contempt.
Plight of employees and failure of authorities
The Bench said employees, including those in the lowest categories and retirees awaiting terminal dues, had been left without money for medical treatment and basic needs, and that about 13 teachers are stated to have died by suicide. It also faulted the education authorities for not acting in time, and noted that FIRs already registered had shown no progress.
“There is a limit to which commercialization of education can be resorted that too at the cost of the innocent employees of the STES.”
Relying on State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Court said a CBI inquiry is to be ordered only rarely, but this was an exceptional situation in which such an order was needed to enforce the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Why the order matters
It is rare for a High Court to bring the CBI, ED and Income Tax authorities together against a private education group over unpaid wages. By treating years of salary default as a possible case of siphoning and money laundering, and freezing the trustees’ assets, the Court has signalled that running educational institutions “as if it is a business” at the cost of employees can draw criminal scrutiny, not just civil recovery.
Case Title: Rohini Aniruddha Mohekar v. Maruti Nivrutti Navale [Contempt Petition No. 349 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 6765 of 2018], with Vidul Vijay Paranjape v. Maruti Nivrutti Navale and connected writ petitions
Bench: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna, Bombay High Court
Date of Order: November 10, 2026
For STES: Dhumal and Harjot Singh, Advocates
For the State: Deolekar, AGP
If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out to Tele-MANAS on 14416 for free mental health support.
