Real Estate Co. Gets Interim Protection From HC in Funds Diversion Case As It Cooperated With Investigation

Case Details: Sidharth Chauhan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi - [2023] 155 taxmann.com 354 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Vikas Mahajan, J.
  • Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Shiv Mangal Sharma, Shashank Khurana, Saurabh Rajpal, Deepak Verma, Abhishek Sharma, Ms Chakshu Purohit & Santosh Kumar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP & Satinder Sangwan, EOW for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner’s company/corporate debtor was a real estate company – CIRP was commenced in respect of the petitioner’s company. Sequel to the above, the petitioner submitted a revival plan/withdrawal proposal for the revival of his company, which was approved by the CoC by 92.85% votes in its favour.

Meanwhile, at the instance of certain home buyers of one of the projects of the corporate debtor, an FIR had been registered alleging that the corporate debtor had failed to complete the project on time and had diverted funds collected from them and, thus, the corporate debtor had committed offences under section 406/420/409/120B of IPC.

The petitioner filed an instant application seeking interim anticipatory bail under section 482 of Cr.PC on the ground that the approved revival plan could be implemented effectively in its true letter and spirit only if he was enlarged on bail and was not taken into custody.

It was noted that the petitioner had shown his bona fide by submitting a reasonable revival plan which found favour with CoC and was eventually approved by the NCLT, and in terms thereof, the petitioner had infused an amount of Rs. 20 crores, which prima facie showed some amount of seriousness on part of the petitioner to complete the project.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the petitioner had co-operated with the investigation, inasmuch as, he had joined the investigation on more than 25 occasions and had also furnished all the requisite documents which had been demanded by the investigating officer

The High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for a grant of interim protection till the next date of hearing. Accordingly, it was directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, till the next date, subject to his joining the investigation as and when directed by the investigating officer concerned.