Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1.25L Cost On Advocate For Filing Multiple Petitions In Real Estate Fraud Case For Making False Declaration & Misrepresenting Orders
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has dismissed 5 writ petitions filed by an advocate searching for motion by the Enforcement Directorate in reference to an alleged actual property fraud. The Court docket discovered that the Petitioner had made false declarations, suppressed the pendency of earlier proceedings, and misrepresented prior judicial orders. A complete price of ₹1.25 lakh was imposed on the Petitioner for abuse of course of.
A Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noticed, “The conduct of the Petitioner in failing to reveal the submitting and pendency of the sooner writ petitions, the deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the orders handed by this Court docket and the false assertion with respect to being a monetary investor within the IREO Initiatives proof that the Petitioner has approached this Court docket with unclean fingers.”
The Court docket added, “The Petitioner has made false declarations opposite to report exhibiting no worry for violating the method of Courts with an intent to mislead the Court docket. The Petitioner is an Advocate by career and is subsequently, conscious concerning the authorized processes and the duty of the occasion/petitioner of deposing in truth whereas submitting affidavits.”
Advocate Himanshu Upadhyaya appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Amol Sinha represented the Respondents.
Transient Info
The Petitioner, an advocate, filed 5 writ petitions searching for instructions to numerous authorities, together with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), to research alleged monetary fraud in a actual property challenge. He alleged that the challenge, marketed underneath a brand new identify, was a relaunch of an earlier residential growth that had been deserted a number of years in the past, and that funds had been siphoned off by way of advanced shareholding constructions and abroad transactions.
In keeping with the Petitioner, the land related to the challenge had been fraudulently mortgaged to safe a mortgage of over ₹1,000 crores, and proceeds collected from homebuyers had been misappropriated. He contended that statutory filings have been withheld from regulators and that a number of group entities have been getting used to disguise the nature of transactions.
The Petitioner claimed to have filed detailed complaints earlier than the ED, CBI, EOW, and RBI, however alleged that no concrete motion had been taken. He sought instructions from the Court docket for a court-monitored investigation underneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002, registration of FIRs underneath IPC offences, and attachment of property linked to the transaction.
In two of the petitions, the Petitioner described himself as a homebuyer whose financial savings had been diverted. The prayers throughout all 5 writ petitions have been considerably related, searching for judicial intervention to compel motion from investigative companies and freeze additional growth on the disputed land.
The ED filed a counter-affidavit stating that it had already registered an ECIR and initiated proceedings underneath the PMLA, together with the submitting of prosecution complaints. It submitted that the Petitioner had no funding within the related initiatives and that he was not mirrored in any purchaser or allottee data. The ED contended that the petitions have been filed with out locus and sought to intrude with an ongoing investigation.
One of many personal Respondents additionally delivered to the Court docket’s consideration that the Petitioner had beforehand approached the Supreme Court docket with related prayers and had withdrawn the matter, which had not been disclosed within the current proceedings.
Reasoning of the Court docket
The Court docket examined whether or not the petitioner had the locus standi to keep up the writ petitions and whether or not the petitions have been in any other case maintainable in view of the admitted information.
It held that the petitioner had no authorized standing to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court docket underneath Article 226, as he was not a homebuyer, investor, or in any other case instantly affected by the alleged fraud.
The Court docket famous, “Within the conspectus of the information rising within the current writ petition(s), it’s not in dispute that the Petitioner neither qualifies as a homebuyer neither is in any other case instantly or not directly affected by the alleged acts of company mismanagement and misappropriation of funds purportedly dedicated by Respondent No. 6 and its key managerial personnel. Consequently, the Petitioner doesn’t fall throughout the class of individual aggrieved in order to be entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court docket underneath Article 226 of the Structure.”
The Court docket famous that submitting a number of petitions with out disclosing earlier ones, significantly with a false declaration that no related matter had been filed, observing, “The Petitioner additionally made a false assertion in W.P. (CRL) 862/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024 that he’s a homebuyer and his hard-earned cash has been duped by the Respondent builder. It’s conceded by the Petitioner that he has made no monetary funding within the IREO Initiatives. The mentioned assertion was made to mislead and overcome the objection of maintainability.”
The Court docket famous that the petitions constituted an try to reopen issues already determined, with out disclosing that truth, and to press for investigation regardless of enforcement motion already being underway.
The Bench noticed, “The conduct of the Petitioner in failing to reveal the submitting and pendency of the sooner writ petitions, the deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the orders handed by this Court docket and the false assertion with respect to being a monetary investor within the IREO Initiatives proof that the Petitioner has approached this Court docket with unclean fingers… The Petitioner has made false declarations opposite to report exhibiting no worry for violating the means of Courts with an intent to mislead the Court docket.”
Accordingly, the Court docket dismissed the petitions for of lack of locus standi and non-maintainability and imposed prices of ₹25,000 in every of the 5 petitions, stating, “Additional, a price of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand solely) for every petition is imposed upon the Petitioner for knowingly concealing the pendency of different petitions, making a false declaration of non-filing, and misrepresenting the contents of the earlier orders handed by this Court docket. The mentioned complete price of Rs. 1,25,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi Excessive Court docket Authorized Companies Committee (DHCLSC) inside a interval of two (2) weeks and an affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the Petitioner inside one (1) thereafter.”
Trigger Title: Gulshan Babbar, Advocate v. State of NCT Delhi & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 29025:DHC:5184)
