TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner came across certain informations from public documents in relation to IBREL and Embassy Group of companies. While examining the scheme of amalgamation between the Embassy Group and IBREL, the petitioner found material information of the fraudulent sanction and disbursement of loans by IBHFL to Embassy Group. Thus, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18th August, 2023 to NHB and highlighted various irregularities committed by IBHFL with regard to fraudulent sanction and disbursement of loans by IBHFL to Embassy Group by creation of unauthorised charges on land belonging to Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ("KIADB"). Since the NHB did not consider the petitioner's representation/complaint, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were filed in Karnataka High Court at Bangalore, in which the fraudulent actions by IBHFL was brought out in public. 4. It is submitted that IBHFL released a huge amount of Rs.1,318/- Crores (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen Crores) to Embassy Group of Companies by creating charges on a property not belonging to any of the Embassy Group....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....py of the Order dated 9th May 2023 passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Chandigarh in C.P. (CAA) No.14/Chd./Hry/2022 is enclosed as Annexure E. xxx xxx xxx 12. I therefore request NHB, through your good office to collect such credit information as described in the Explanation to Section 25 of the Act from IBHFL as the loan sanctioned by IBHFL is without due verification of relevant documents. Further, the purpose of the loan and deployment of loan amount of thousands of crores by Embassy group requires scrutiny since the mortgaged property continues to remain vacant and undeveloped. I regret to inform you that despite RBI forwarding my complaint to NHB for necessary action, I have not received any response on the status of my complaint. Kindly enquire into this fraudulent gross irregularity in sanctioning funds by IBHFL to IBREL. The relevant action/information in this regard may be furnished to me so that I may appraise the Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi which is considering the Appeal of IBREL against the Order dated 9th May 2023 passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Chandigarh in C.P. (CAA) No.14/Chd./Hry/2022 through an appropriate intervention/ Appeal. xxx xxx xxx" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e company will have the potential to derail any amalgamation process and thereby affect the broader interest of the companies amalgamating. Furthermore, by just buying shares from the earlier objector, on commercial consideration, the right to object does not necessarily pass on to the buyer of the shares. In view of this, we refuse to entertain the prayer of the objector and did not find it appropriate to go into the merits of the objections raised. 12. As regards the prayer of CA No. 29/2023, seeking permission to obtain the reports filed by the Income Tax Department, we are of the view that the report filed by the Department is for the consideration of the Bench alone, and the same are not to be shared with any third party. 13. We are also conscious of the directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tejo Ratna Kongara VS. The National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh and others in CWP-9490-2023 dated 03.02.2023, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has noted CA No. 09/2023 and CA No. 29/2023 have already been reserved by this Bench and has observed that they do not find any ground to restrain this Tribunal from deciding the main company pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a fishing and roving enquiry against a party with whom the petitioner has pending disputes, for the purposes of collecting evidence and documents to be used against such a party. The present petition filed by the petitioner is clearly a misuse and abuse of the process of the Court. 13. Thus, in the case of Suresh Kumar Versus GNCT of Delhi & Others, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3757, this Court has held as follows: "xxx xxx xxx 8. The petitioner has to himself make out a case and cannot seek a direction for summoning of the records to enable him to make out a case, without even making out a case for summoning of records. The petitioner cannot make this Court commence a roving and fishing enquiry. The Full Bench of this Court in Prakash Vir Shastri v. UOI AIR 1974 Delhi 1 refused an application seeking production of documents to find out if there had been any violation of Article 14 and held that the petition should be decided on the material on record and under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court should not embark upon a roving enquiry. The Division Bench of this Court recently also in A.G.R. Investment Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 176 (2011) DLT....