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

MUMBAI: A special court rejected CBI‘s chargesheet against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd (IHFL), share broker Sanjay Dangi, and DB Realty promoters (Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka) along with their associate firms in Rs 4,733 crore DHFL-Yes Bank loan fraud case. The court concluded there was inadequate proof to demonstrate their participation in any bank fraud conspiracy.
Subsequently, in three separate orders, the court also cancelled the lookout circular against Dangi and DB Realty promoters, as no cognisance was taken against 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 final supplementary chargesheet, CBI included 13 accused, including companies. The court dismissed allegations against nine of them and issued process against only four after prima facie establishing a case against them, including Rahul Shah and Ramesh Shah along with their firm Sumer Buildcorp, and Farid Sama (who is absconding).
The case involved Yes Bank, then led by Rana Kapoor, providing 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 related matter, IHFL, which approved loans to Chhabariaa-linked firms allegedly for commission, was also named as an accused, but court dropped the case against the firm.
The court rejected CBI’s case against Balwa and Goenka of DB Realty involving Yes Bank, where Neelkamal Realtors Towers or NRTPL, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DB Realty, obtained Rs 350 crore from Yes Bank between 2013 and 2016, which were diverted by making payments due on other DB Group companies and for payment of interest.
The court stated, “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 against IHFL and its associate firm, the court said, “M”erely because commission is given to accused No 41 (IVL Finance Ltd, associate firm of IHFL), it does not attract any of the penal provisions…”