TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s DHFL to M/s DOIT Urban Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. (a Group Company). 3. Three daughters of Mr. Rana Kapoor were 100% shareholders of M/s DOIT Urban Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. through M/s Morgan Credits Pvt. Ltd. The loan of Rs. 600 Crores was sanctioned by M/s DHFL to M/s DOIT Urban Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of mortgage of sub-standard properties having very meagre value. 4. M/s DHFL failed to redeem the amount of Rs. 3700 Crores invested by M/s Yes Bank Ltd. in its debentures till date. In addition to the above, M/s Yes Bank Ltd. had also sanctioned a loan of Rs. 750 Crores to one RKW Developers Group Companies financed by Mr. Kapil Wadhawan, Mr. Dheeraj Wadhawan and their family members. The loan was sanctioned for Bandra Reclamation Project, Mumbai but the whole amount was siphoned off by Mr. Kapil Wadhawan and Mr. Dheeraj Wadhawan through their shell companies and never used for the purpose it was sanctioned. The entire amount was transferred by RKW Developers Group Companies of M/s DHFL without making investment in Bandra Reclamation Project. 5. The allegation was that Mr. Rana Kapoor, Director of Yes Bank Ltd. obtained undue pecuniary advantage from M/s DH....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion given to the appellant. It is despite the fact that the appellant company has not been named as an accused and no proceeding has been undertaken against them. Their activities have not been taken to be illegal or offending Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002') and, therefore, there was no reason to attach the bank accounts of the appellant company. The proceeding could not have been undertaken otherwise without an opportunity of hearing to the appellant on the ground that the appellant company is a beneficiary company/entity owned by Shri Kapil Wadhawan, Shri Dheeraj Wadhawan and their family members were having other 179 entities and accordingly in reference to the serious allegation against Wadhawan family, the attachment of the properties of their entities has been made. 11. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant company is engaged in the business of managing funds and is otherwise registered with SEBI. It was having genuine business and the money received from the investors was being used for investing in real estate companies. The amount was paid to the investors along with the benefit and the amount lying in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to alter the basis of his plaint. In a rejoinder, plaintiff may simply explain if certain additional facts have been taken in the written statement but he cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in the rejoinder. The original pleas cannot be permitted to be altered under the garb of filing a rejoinder. Rejoinder/replication cannot be permitted for introducing pleas which are not consistent with the earlier pleas. (10). In State of Rajasthan vs. Mohammed Ikbal, this Court considered its earlier judgments in M/s. Ajanta Enterprises (supra) and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (7), and held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas under the garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely new case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action. (11). In Ishwar Lal & Anr. vs. Ashok & Anr., this Court held that rejoinder-affidavit can be filed only with leave of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guments to contest the appeal which would be referred while recording finding in reference to each issue raised by the appellant company. It is to avoid repetition of one and the same issue. Finding of the Tribunal: 15. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant company which was not a noticee defendant before the Adjudicating Authority. It remained aggrieved on account of attachment of their bank accounts without affording an opportunity of hearing by the Adjudicating Authority. We find that if the appellant was aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the appeal could have been filed after seeking leave of the Tribunal to maintain it. 16. We would, however, address the issue raised by the appellant. It is a case where the bank accounts of the appellant with Axis Bank and HDFC Bank have been attached. The amount of Rs. 15,07,849/- was lying in the Axis Bank and Rs. 22,111/- with HDFC Bank. The counsel for the appellant admitted that the shareholding of the appellant company is with Wadhavan Global Capital Ltd. without intervention of any other shareholder, rather it is 100% shareholding with Wadhawan Global Capital Ltd. involving Wadhawans therein. It i....