Delhi High Court Upholds ED's Action Against Real Estate Firm, Imposes Rs 1.25 Lakh Fine on Petitioner
The Delhi High Court has endorsed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) actions against a real estate firm accused of financial irregularities and slapped a fine of Rs 1.25 lakh on the petitioner for concealing facts.
Delhi High CourtEnforcement DirectorateReal EstateFinancial IrregularitiesLegal ProceedingsReal Estate NewsJul 03, 2025
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in his judgment, came down heavily on the petitioner for his lack of transparency and the deliberate misrepresentation of facts. The court accepted the ED’s detailed explanation of the actions taken against the real estate firm and its officials.
The ED had identified total proceeds of crime amounting to Rs 1,376 crore and had secured these through attachment. In response to the petitioner’s allegations that the ED had failed to act against the company for the alleged diversion of bank loan money, the investigative agency clarified that the loan transaction of Rs 600 crore and its alleged illegal diversion, though known to them, were not part of the PMLA case because the lender banks had not filed any criminal complaint.
The court firmly rejected the petitioner’s claim that the total proceeds of crime were Rs 4,246.22 crore, stating that this assertion was not substantiated. Justice Arora emphasized, “The conduct of the petitioner in failing to disclose the filing and pendency of the earlier writ petitions, the deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the orders passed by this court, and the false assertion with respect to being a financial investor in the IREO Projects show that the petitioner has approached this court with unclean hands.”
The High Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 for each of the five petitions on the petitioner, totaling Rs 1,25,000, for knowingly concealing the pendency of other petitions, making a false declaration of non-filing, and misrepresenting the contents of previous orders. The court directed that this amount be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within two weeks.
The petition filed by Babbar sought directions to statutory authorities, including the ED, to investigate the alleged siphoning of funds by the real estate company, its group companies, and its directors, Lalit Goyal and Sapna Goyal. Babbar contended that while the ED identified Rs 4,246 crore as proceeds of crime, it only attached properties worth Rs 1,317 crore, deliberately excluding high-value assets such as 149 acres of prime land in Delhi, Gurugram properties, and overseas investments. He alleged investigative bias and collusion, seeking a direction to the ED to register a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and pass a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under Section 5(1) of the Act, prohibiting the private respondents and other accused from alienating proceeds of crime.
This ruling by the Delhi High Court underscores the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings and reinforces the ED’s role in investigating financial crimes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main issue in the petition filed by Gulshan Babbar?
The main issue in the petition filed by Gulshan Babbar was the alleged siphoning of funds by a real estate company, IREO Residences, and its directors, Lalit Goyal and Sapna Goyal. Babbar accused the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of bias and collusion in not attaching all the proceeds of crime.
What was the total amount of proceeds of crime identified by the ED?
The ED identified total proceeds of crime amounting to Rs 1,376 crore in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case against the real estate firm.
Why did the Delhi High Court dismiss the petition and impose a fine on the petitioner?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and imposed a fine of Rs 1.25 lakh on the petitioner, Gulshan Babbar, for concealing facts, making false allegations, and having unclean hands in the legal proceedings.
What was the court's response to the petitioner's claim about the total proceeds of crime?
The court rejected the petitioner's claim that the total proceeds of crime were Rs 4,246.22 crore, stating that this assertion was not substantiated.
What did the court direct the petitioner to do after imposing the fine?
The court directed the petitioner to deposit the total cost of Rs 1,25,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within two weeks.
Related News Articles
Nemetschek Group Sets Sights on Dominating India's AEC Market
The Nemetschek Group, a global leader in AEC software solutions, targets 15-20% market share in India within three years, leveraging innovative solutions and ethical AI practices.
Monsoon Mayhem: Maharashtra Braces for Heavy Rains, Mumbai and Pune on High Alert
Get ready for more rainfall in Maharashtra as IMD predicts heavy showers in Mumbai and Pune, causing waterlogging and disrupting daily life.
CII-IGBC and CREDAI Unite to Boost Sustainable Development in Indian Real Estate
Mumbai: CII-IGBC and CREDAI join hands to promote eco-friendly projects in real estate, encouraging developers to adopt green technologies.
Shapoorji Pallonji Real Estate Teams Up with Kanodia for ₹1,200 Crore Luxury Housing Project in Gurugram
In a strategic move, Shapoorji Pallonji Real Estate (SPRE) has joined forces with Kanodia to launch a ₹1,200 crore luxury housing project in Gurugram. This marks the company's second venture in the city, further cementing its position in the real estate m
Kolte-Patil Developers Surges 12% Post Q2 Business Update
Kolte-Patil Developers (KPDL), a prominent real estate company with a strong presence in the Pune residential market and growing presence in Mumbai and Bengaluru, saw its shares rally 12% on heavy volumes after announcing its Q2FY25 business update. The c
Signature Global Secures Rs 567 Crore Contracts for Housing Project in Gurugram
Signature Global, a prominent real estate developer, has secured contracts worth Rs 567 crore for the construction of a new housing project in Gurugram. The company has been actively acquiring land to meet the growing demand in the market.