Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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