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

Mumbai: A special court rejected the CBI charge sheet against Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IHFL), Share the broker Sanjay Dangi, and DB realty Promoters (Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goonka) with their associate firms for Rs 4,733 crore Debt fraud Case. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate their participation in any bank fraud conspiracy.
Subsequently, in three separate orders, the court also quashed the lookout circular against Dangi and DB realty promoters, as no cognizance was taken against them in the charge sheet, stating, “The proceedings against the applicant have been abandoned, so there is no purpose to keep the LOC alive. Accordingly, the CBI directed to cancel the LOC”.
In this final supplementary charge sheet, companies were involved in the CBI. The court dismissed the allegations against nine of them and issued a process against only four, when prima facie after setting up a case against them, Rahul Shah and Ramesh Shah along with their firm Sumer BuildCorp, and Farid Sama (who are absconding).
The matter was involved in Yes Bank, then under the leadership of Rana Kapoor, providing Rs 4,733 crore DHFLWhose promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhavan gave Sanjay Chhabaria’s Fipl Rs 678 crore in the builder. In a related case, IHFL, who allegedly approved the loan to Chhabaria-Linked firms for commission, was also nominated as an accused, but the court left the case against the firm.
The court rejected the CBI case against DB Realty’s Balwa and Goenka, involving Yes Bank, where Neelkamal Realteers Towers or NRTPL, DB Realty’s full -ridden subsidiary, a subsidiary of DB Realty, received Rs 350 crore from Yes Bank between 2013 and 2016, which were diverted to pay and pay interest due to other DB group companies.
The court said, “The loan has been repaid through one -time disposal, but yes the bank is suffering because the amount has not been received by them … This was to disclose the exact status of the outstanding loan for the investigating officer, if any, if any, as the date of filing the 4th supplementary charge sheet before this court.”
Rejecting the CBI case against IHFL and its associate firm, the court said, “M”, “M” Erely because the Commission is given to the accused number 41 (IVL Finance Limited, Associate Firm of IHFL), it does not attract any punishment provision … “