UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Financial Irregularities by Indiabulls; Says No Substantial Evidence Found

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an in-depth investigation into the alleged financial irregularities and fund siphoning by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) and its group companies. The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, held that there was no substantial evidence to support the allegations.

The petitioner, Citizens Whistle Blower Forum, represented by advocates including Mr. Prashant Bhushan, had sought the court's intervention for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged financial misconduct by Indiabulls. They contended that the company and its subsidiaries were involved in dubious loans and investments, violating several statutory provisions.

However, the bench observed, "Due to articles published in magazines and newspapers, the shareholders of the accused companies were jolted and they were made to suffer huge losses." The court further noted that "the jurisdiction of investigation lies within the realm of the investigating agency and a court has no authority to interfere in the investigation until and unless there is grave miscarriage of justice or misuse of process of law."

In its detailed judgment, the court referred to the counter affidavits and inspection reports from various regulatory bodies, including the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the National Housing Bank (NHB). These reports indicated that most loans in question had been repaid and those remaining were considered standard accounts.

The court also highlighted the lack of evidence substantiating the petitioner's claims and observed that the ongoing investigations by regulatory authorities were sufficient. "The power to transfer an investigation must be used 'sparingly' and only 'in exceptional circumstances'," the court remarked, citing the Supreme Court's directives in similar cases.

Date of Decision: February 2, 2024

CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

 

Latest Legal News