Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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