IHFL, DB promoters get relief in DHFL-Yes Bank loan fraud case | India News

MUMBAI: A particular court docket rejected CBI’s chargesheet towards Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd (IHFL), share dealer Sanjay Dangi, and DB Realty promoters (Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka) together with their affiliate companies in Rs 4,733 crore DHFL-Yes Bank loan fraud case. The court docket concluded there was insufficient proof to display their participation in any financial institution fraud conspiracy.
Subsequently, in three separate orders, the court docket additionally cancelled the lookout round towards Dangi and DB Realty promoters, as no cognisance was taken towards them in the chargesheet, stating, “proceedings against the applicant have been dropped, therefore no purpose of keeping LOC alive. Accordingly, CBI directed for cancelling the LOC”.
In this last supplementary chargesheet, CBI included 13 accused, together with firms. The court docket dismissed allegations towards 9 of them and issued course of towards solely 4 after prima facie establishing a case towards them, together with Rahul Shah and Ramesh Shah together with their agency Sumer Buildcorp, and Farid Sama (who’s absconding).
The case concerned Yes Bank, then led by Rana Kapoor, offering Rs 4,733 crore to DHFL, whose promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan transferred Rs 678 crore to builder Sanjay Chhabariaa’s FIIPL. In a associated matter, IHFL, which permitted loans to Chhabariaa-linked companies allegedly for fee, was additionally named as an accused, however court docket dropped the case towards the agency.
The court docket rejected CBI’s case towards Balwa and Goenka of DB Realty involving Yes Bank, the place Neelkamal Realtors Towers or NRTPL, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DB Realty, obtained Rs 350 crore from Yes Bank between 2013 and 2016, which had been diverted by making funds due on different DB Group firms and for cost of curiosity.
The court docket acknowledged, “The loan has been repaid by way of a one-time settlement, but Yes Bank is the sufferer as the amount has not been received by them… It was for the investigating officer to disclose the exact position of the outstanding loan, if any, as of the date of filing of the 4th supplementary chargesheet before this court.”
Rejecting CBI’s case towards IHFL and its affiliate agency, the court docket stated, “M”erely as a result of fee is given to accused No 41 (IVL Finance Ltd, affiliate agency of IHFL), it doesn’t entice any of the penal provisions…”