TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash Khatri, Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Ms. Tannavi Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Advocates for Respondent Sh. Lalit Goyal., Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP (CBI) with Mr. Swapnil Choudhary, Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj and Mr. Sagar, Advocates, Mr. Farman Ali, SPC and Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocate for R-1, Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, Jr. Standing Counsel for ITD. JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J : 1. W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ('Constitution'), seeking directions to statutory authorities, including the Directorate of Enforcement ('ED') and the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI'), to investigate the alleged siphoning of funds by a real estate company, M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd., its group companies, and its directors, Mr. Lalit Goyal and Ms. Sapna Goyal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') to freeze the funds lying in the Escrow Account in the name of M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 In the said writ petition, vide order dated 22.02.2024, this Court issued notice only to the State, through the SHO, Patparganj (Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 05.04.2024, based on similar averments and the same cause of action as in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 seeking a specific direction in W.P. (Crl.) 1111/2024 for investigation by the CBI into the alleged siphoning of funds by M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd., its group companies, and its directors, Mr. Lalit Goyal and Ms. Sapna Goyal. 3.1 In this petition, there was no disclosure as to the pendency of W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 and W.P. (CRL.) 862/2024. In fact, the Petitioner while pleading the mandatory non-filing clause in the writ petition [at paragraph 10], made a false declaration with respect to non-pendency of any other writ petition. The Petitioner was bound to disclose the pendency of the said writ petition. 3.2 In W.P. (Crl.) 1111/2024, the Petitioner has acknowledged that the ED had already registered an Enforcement Case Information Report ('ECIR') against M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd. and its key managerial personnel, pursuant to which an investigation is ongoing and a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed. The Petitioner also sought directions to restrain the Private Respondents from alienating the alleged proceeds of crime. 3.3 No notice has been issued i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate malfeasance by M/s IREO Group of companies and its key managerial persons. 5.1 In the said writ petition, the Petitioner has alleged that M/s Blue Planet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a IREO group company was fraudulently used in land transactions even prior to its legal incorporation on 09.08.2010, with fabricated board resolutions and sale deeds being created to show its involvement in transactions held in July, 2010 and earlier. It is stated that M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and its promoters colluded with M/s Blue Planet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to divert homebuyers' funds through sham transactions between 2010-2016, despite the land being fully financed by the companies of IREO Group. It is stated that despite ED's supplementary prosecution complaint filed in ECIR/GNZO/10/2021 on 04.08.2023 acknowledging these irregularities and further Income Tax findings revealing fund diversions, the investigative agencies have failed to take action due to undue influence. Therefore, through the aforementioned writ petition, the Petitioner has also sought court-monitored investigations to ensure a fair, unbiased, and expeditious probe into the matter. 5.2 In this petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....maintainability of the reliefs prayed for in all the connected writ petitions. Brief facts in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 9. The brief facts, as set out in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024, are that the Petitioner, while searching for a residential property, came across an advertisement dated 16.09.2023 published in the Hindustan Times for Project namely 'IREO Savannah' by M/s Faith Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a group company of Respondent No. 6 [M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd.], which claimed ownership of a plot located in Sohna, Haryana. Upon visiting the site, the Petitioner discovered that M/s Faith Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. was not the actual owner. Instead, four entities were involved in the project: M/s Faith Buildtech (Developer), M/s Trinayan Infracon (Owner), M/s Siddhanta Infracon (Owner), and M/s Gulmohar Real Build (Owner). 9.1 It is stated that this revelation led the Petitioner to suspect misrepresentation, and upon enquiry, the Petitioner discovered that the advertised property was linked to another project, namely the 'Grand Hyatt Residences' Project in Gurgaon, which had been launched in 2012 but had remained stalled since 2014. It is further stated that the Haryana Real Estate Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the ED under the PMLA. 9.6 It is stated that no action has been taken to date, therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking appropriate directions to Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to initiate legal proceedings and criminal prosecution against the Respondent companies and their Directors and Key Managerial Persons responsible for the conduct of business, for offences committed under applicable provisions of law and further seeking a direction to Respondent No. 5 to not to allow foreign remittance of Rs.600 crores lying in Escrow Account in the name of Respondent No. 6. Arguments of Petitioner 10. Mr. Himanshu Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioners intent is limited to placing on record cogent information and documents as to the siphoning of funds and corporate mismanagement by IREO group companies, and seeks a direction from this Court to the investigating authorities to conduct a proper investigation into the concerns raised by the Petitioner regarding financial mismanagement in the IREO Group through its directors, Lalit Goel and Sapna Goel. 10.1 He stated that despite submission of all the relevant information by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. 11.1 He stated that investigation against the IREO group companies, its director Mr. Lalit Goyal, related/associate companies, and other key managerial personnel is already underway. He contended that since the investigation is ongoing, no direction can be issued to the ED regarding the manner or mode of investigation, which lies solely within the prerogative of the Investigating Officer and Agency. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24. 11.2 He stated that Gurgaon Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate has registered an ECIR against IERO Group, its director Mr. Lalit Goyal, related/associate companies and other key managerial personnel vide ECIR/GNZO/10/2021 under PMLA on 15.06.2021 pursuant to which the investigation was conducted, leading to the arrest of Mr. Lalit Goyal. 11.3 He stated that on the basis of the evidence collected following investigation under ECIR/GNZO/10/2021, the ED filed a prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 qua the main accused Lalit Goyal and six IREO group of corporate entities before the learned Special Court (PMLA), Panchkula. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the ED has already covered the issues raised therein through prosecution complaints under Sections 44 and 45(1) of the PMLA, and by issuing two PAOs followed by Original Complaints under Section 5 of the PMLA. The identified proceeds of crime till date amounting to Rs. 1,376 Crores, which includes Rs. 373.95 Crores collected by M/s IREO Residences Co. Pvt. Ltd. from the homebuyers for the 'Grand Hyatt Residences' project and the entire amount stands attached under the provisions of the PMLA. 11.11 With respect to W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1111/2024 and 1219/2024, he stated that the alleged diversion of Rs. 533 Crores out of the loan amount of Rs. 600 crores, by Private Respondent in 2017 has already been addressed in the first prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022, particularly in Paragraphs 10.4.5 and 10.4.8 wherein it was detailed that the M/s IREO Group transferred funds offshore through entities such as M/s Luzige Ltd. and M/s Sethos Ltd., without any project completion, and based solely on valuation reports. 11.12 He stated that as a part of fact-finding exercise, ED made enquiries with the lending banks which revealed that no predicate offence has been registered at the insta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cross the bar on 20.03.2025 and the same has been taken on record. Arguments of Respondent No. 7, Lalit Goyal 12. Mr. Viraj R. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for Private Respondent No. 7 adopts the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 regarding the Petitioner's lack of locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions. 12.1 In addition to the issue of locus standi, learned senior counsel stated that the Petitioner has attempted to circumvent the limitation of not being an affected party under Article 226 of the Constitution by portraying the writ petitions as public interest litigations (PILs). However, the petitions have neither been titled nor filed in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot now claim that the petitions are in the nature of PILs. 12.2 He stated that the Petitioner has abused the process of law by filing multiple writ petitions against Respondent No. 7 and its group companies, seeking similar reliefs relating to investigation, despite being fully aware of pending inquiries. Simultaneously, the Petitioner has lodged multiple complaints before various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing similar relief(s) as to court monitored investigation are maintainable. Issue No. i: Whether Petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ petitions 16. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the present case, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671, wherein the Court laid down the settled principle that a person/petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must ordinarily have a personal or individual right in the subject matter. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:- "34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12], Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728], Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044], Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784] .] ...... ..... 14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, the captioned writ petitions are not Public Interest Litigations and, therefore, Petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions. 16.4 Further, the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay (Supra) to maintain these writ petitions for a Court monitored investigation, in the considered opinion of this Court is misconceived. While it is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that any individual may set the criminal law in motion, save where a statutory provision enacting or creating an offence provides however, the said principle of law was set out in the said judgment in the context of filing and maintaining complaints before the competent authority and not a writ petition. Paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said judgment itself are instructive and clarifies that the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, envisages specific procedural routes, which are available to the complainant who seeks to put the criminal law into motion namely, by approaching either the Magistrate or the officer in charge of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e legal principles qua the said relief sought in these writ petition(s). It is a settled principle of law that judicial supervision over investigation is to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and where such oversight becomes imperative in the interest of justice. In the judgement of Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52, the Supreme Court held that as long as investigation does not suffer from any vires of law that the Court should not entrust itself the task of monitoring the same. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under :- "7. It seems rather unusual that when the aggrieved party approached the High Court challenging the order passed by a subordinate court the High Court made the position worse for the aggrieved party. The officials of the Directorate are now injuncted by the Division Bench from arresting the respondent and the time and places for carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench. Such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to decide the course of investigation. If the court is to interfere in each and every stage of the investigation and the interrogation of the accused, it would affect the normal course of investigation. It must be left to the investigating agency to proceed in its own manner in interrogation of the accused, nature of questions put to him and the manner of interrogation of the accused. 67. It is one thing to say that if the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide or non-compliance of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in the conduct of the investigation, it is open to the court to quash the proceedings where there is a clear case of abuse of power. It is a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, can always issue appropriate direction at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide and not in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as pointed out earlier that power is to be exercised in rare cases where there is a clear abuse of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d registered as COMA/1/2022. Its cognizance has been taken by the learned Special Court, (PMLA) Panchkula, vide order dated 21.01.2022. A supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04.08.2023 also stands filed and the learned Special Judge, (PMLA), Panchkula vide order dated 09.10.2023 has granted permission for continuation of investigation and filing of further supplementary prosecution complaint. 18.5 ED has asserted that on the basis of its investigation, the total proceeds of crime identified till date in the instant PMLA case is Rs. 1,376 crores, which has been secured by attaching properties vide PAO no. 01/2022 dated 14.10.2022 and PAO no. 03/2024 dated 20.05.2024. 18.6 ED has asserted that the transactions of IREO group companies complained of in all the writ petitions are to its knowledge, have been investigated and have been duly set out in the prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 and supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04.08.2023. 18.7 ED has stated that the loan transaction of Rs. 600 [W.P. (CRL) 1111/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024] crores and its alleged illegal diversion though to its knowledge has not been made a part of the instant PMLA case as the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitored investigation or issuance of directions for further attachment in these proceedings by ED has been made out by the Petitioner. 18.12 The Issue No. ii accordingly decided against the Petitioner. 19. The Petitioner has impleaded SHO, P.S. Parliament Street. The said SHO has filed its status report dated 17.05.2024 and stated that all allegations raised by the Petitioner in its complaint have arisen at Gurugram, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Police Station. The said status report has not been disputed by the Petitioner. 20. With respect to the investigation by SFIO as regards the allegations forming subject matter of W.P. (CRL) 2595/2024, this Court notes that a specific order in this regard has already been passed by the Coordinate Bench on 11.03.2020 in W.P. (CRL) 679/2020. Further, the Division Bench vide order dated 28.03.2023 passed in W.P. (CRL) 2577/2021 recorded its satisfaction with the status report filed by SFIO in those proceedings, while noting that the investigation is pending. This Court having concluded that the Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain these petitions is not inclined to issue any directions to SFIO for com....