The Delhi High Court has dismissed five writ petitions filed by an advocate seeking action by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with an alleged real estate fraud. The Court found that the Petitioner had made false declarations, suppressed the pendency of earlier proceedings, and misrepresented prior judicial orders. A total cost of ₹1.25 lakh was imposed on the Petitioner for abuse of process.

A Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “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 evidence that the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands.”

The Court added, “The Petitioner has made false declarations contrary to record exhibiting no fear for violating the process of Courts with an intent to mislead the Court. The Petitioner is an Advocate by profession and is therefore, aware about the legal processes and the obligation of the party/petitioner of deposing truthfully while filing affidavits.”

Advocate Himanshu Upadhyaya appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Amol Sinha represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner, an advocate, filed five writ petitions seeking directions to various authorities, including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), to investigate alleged financial fraud in a real estate project. He alleged that the project, advertised under a new name, was a relaunch of an earlier residential development that had been abandoned several years ago, and that funds had been siphoned off through complex shareholding structures and overseas transactions.

According to the Petitioner, the land associated with the project had been fraudulently mortgaged to secure a loan of over ₹1,000 crores, and proceeds collected from homebuyers had been misappropriated. He contended that statutory filings were withheld from regulators and that multiple group entities were being used to disguise the nature of transactions.

The Petitioner claimed to have filed detailed complaints before the ED, CBI, EOW, and RBI, but alleged that no concrete action had been taken. He sought directions from the Court for a court-monitored investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, registration of FIRs under IPC offences, and attachment of assets linked to the transaction.

In two of the petitions, the Petitioner described himself as a homebuyer whose savings had been diverted. The prayers across all five writ petitions were substantially similar, seeking judicial intervention to compel action from investigative agencies and freeze further development on the disputed land.

The ED filed a counter-affidavit stating that it had already registered an ECIR and initiated proceedings under the PMLA, including the filing of prosecution complaints. It submitted that the Petitioner had no investment in the relevant projects and that he was not reflected in any buyer or allottee records. The ED contended that the petitions were filed without locus and sought to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

One of the private Respondents also brought to the Court’s attention that the Petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court with similar prayers and had withdrawn the matter, which had not been disclosed in the present proceedings.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court examined whether the petitioner had the locus standi to maintain the writ petitions and whether the petitions were otherwise maintainable in view of the admitted facts.

It held that the petitioner had no legal standing to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226, as he was not a homebuyer, investor, or otherwise directly affected by the alleged fraud.

The Court noted, “In the conspectus of the facts emerging in the present writ petition(s), it is not in dispute that the Petitioner neither qualifies as a homebuyer nor is otherwise directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts of corporate mismanagement and misappropriation of funds purportedly committed by Respondent No. 6 and its key managerial personnel. Consequently, the Petitioner does not fall within the category of person aggrieved so as to be entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

The Court noted that filing multiple petitions without disclosing earlier ones, particularly with a false declaration that no similar matter had been filed, observing, “The Petitioner also made a false statement in W.P. (CRL) 862/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024 that he is a homebuyer and his hard-earned money has been duped by the Respondent builder. It is conceded by the Petitioner that he has made no financial investment in the IREO Projects. The said statement was made to mislead and overcome the objection of maintainability.”

The Court noted that the petitions constituted an attempt to reopen matters already decided, without disclosing that fact, and to press for investigation despite enforcement action already being underway.

The Bench observed, “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 evidence that the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands… The Petitioner has made false declarations contrary to record exhibiting no fear for violating the process of Courts with an intent to mislead the Court.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions for of lack of locus standi and non-maintainability and imposed costs of ₹25,000 in each of the five petitions, stating, “Further, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) for each petition is imposed upon the Petitioner for knowingly concealing the pendency of other petitions, making a false declaration of non-filing, and misrepresenting the contents of the previous orders passed by this Court. The said total cost of Rs. 1,25,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within a period of two (2) weeks and an affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the Petitioner within one (1) thereafter.”

Cause Title: Gulshan Babbar, Advocate v. State of NCT Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 29025:DHC:5184)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Himanshu Upadhyaya, Ruby Sharma, Aastha Singh

Respondents: Senior Advocate Viraj R. Datar; ASC Amol Sinha, Rahul Tyagi; Special Counsel (ED) Zoheb Hossain; Advocates Mathew M. Philip, Sangeet Sibou, Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Surya Prakash Khatri, Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Tannavi Sharma, Nikhil Pawar

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh AroraDelhi High Court

Namrata Banerjee

Supreme Court Correspondent

Namrata is a Correspondent covering the Supreme Court of India. She has previously practiced law and worked in-house with a Public Sector Undertaking.