MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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.

 

Similar News