Frustrated with an advocate for filing multiple frivolous petitions and demanding Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate(ED) probe against directors of ‘IREO Residences’, a real estate company, the Delhi High Court, not only rejected his vexatious petitions but went a step further and imposed a penalty of ₹1.25 lakh on him.

Advocate Gulshan Babbar, who is also the petitioner in the case, alleged that IREA company’s directors, Lalit and Sapna Goyal, had misappropriated and siphoned off funds by diverting them to shell companies.

It was during the hearing of this petition that Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora determined that he had improperly concealed the existence of prior petitions from the court. Stated the judge "In view of the foregoing, all the writ petitions filed by the Petitioner are dismissed on the grounds of lack of locus standi and non-maintainability. Further, a cost of ₹25,000 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 ₹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."

Questioning Babbar's locus standi , the court noted that the claims made by Babbar were not only baseless but also misleading, compromising the integrity of the judicial process.

The court also dismissed Babbar's claims against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding its alleged inaction on the diversion of funds noting, “ED has stated that the loan transaction of Rs 600 crore and its alleged illegal diversion though to its knowledge has not been made a part of the instant PMLA case as the lender banks have not filed any criminal complaint with any LEA (law enforcement agency) and, therefore, in the absence of any registered predicate offence this transaction is not part of a scheduled offence and the provisions of PMLA cannot be invoked to investigate the said transaction.”

Conclusively, the court mandated that the imposed cost be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee by the petitioner within a two-weeks

and an affidavit of compliance to be filed thereafter.

Case Title : Gulshan Babbar v. IREO Residences Pvt. Ltd. Writ Petition criminal 614/2024