Yes Bank case: SC seeks CBI, ED response on Dheeraj Wadhawan bail plea on medical ground

The Supreme Court Wednesday directed the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate apprise it of their stand on plea of Dheeraj Wadhawan, a promoter of Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL) and an accused in the Yes Bank fraud case, seeking interim bail on medical grounds. A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli asked the agencies as to why they want to keep the accused in jail and for what purpose when the charge sheet has been filed.

"We want to know as to for what purposes you want to keep him in jail. Do you want further investigation or what? Let him remain in jail or hospital. Tell us what you want to get out of him now...You are not denying that he has been in jail for 20 odd months," said the bench during the hearing.

"Additional Solicitor General is directed to obtain instructions on the prayer of the petitioner for bail on medical grounds, in the meantime," the bench ordered and listed the plea for further hearing on January 4.

During the hearing, additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for CBI and ED, said the accused has been in one of the best hospitals in the country and has been getting the best available treatment at the Kokilaben Ambani Hospital.

"This is one of the greatest scams where the huge amount of money of the bank has been siphoned off and around Rs 600 crore has been paid as kickback and the money of middle class and poor people has been taken away," the law officer said and sought time for responding to the bail plea.

"Can you afford to argue this for opposing the bail plea on medical grounds," the bench asked.

The law officer said he was responding to the query as to why the agencies want the accused to remain in jail and so far as the medical grounds are concerned, firstly the health conditions are exaggerated and secondly, the best available treatment at one of the best hospitals.

He also referred to the past violations of the bail conditions by the accused.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for the accused, referred to the medical conditions of Dheeraj Wadhawan and sought interim bail on this ground alone.

The accused was not precluded from filing bail applications on medical grounds just because another plea of default bail is pending, Singhvi argued , adding that the accused has had the "history of heart and lung problems".

The law officer referred to the gravity of the offence as one of the reasons for keeping the accused in jail.

Earlier on November 4, the Bombay High Court had rejected the bail applications of Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan, promoters of Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL), in the Yes Bank fraud case, holding that procedures were followed when a charge sheet was filed.

The high court had rejected the arguments made by the Wadhawan that the CBI failed to follow procedure while filing a charge sheet in the case.

The Wadhawans had sought 'default bail', claiming that the Central Bureau of Investigation, the prosecuting agency, had not complied with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) while filing a chargesheet in a special CBI court here.

A default bail is given when procedural aspects, such as filing charge sheet within the stipulated period, are not followed.

As per the FIR registered in the case by the CBI, Yes Bank invested Rs 3,700 crore in short-term debentures of DHFL between April and June 2018, for which the Wadhawans allegedly gave a kickback of Rs 600 crore to the bank's then CEO and managing director Rana Kapoor.

These kickbacks were in the form of a loan to a company registered in the name of Kapoor's daughters, it said.

Source :  Economic times

Bombay High Court discharges DHFL in DHFL-Yes Bank case

The Bombay High Court has discharged Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) in the case involving its promoters Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan, and Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor.

The order was passed in a writ petition filed by DHFL seeking discharge, or in the alternative, dropping of proceedings against it. Advocates Hiten Venegaokar, Ninad More and Siddhant Rai appeared for the CBI and strongly opposed this request. They said that the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approving the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was under challenge before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam with Advocates Karan Kadam, Vivek Shetty, Amey Mirajkar, Nishant Upadhyay and Ayush Chaddha appearing for DHFL stated that it had already undergone CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the NCLT-Mumbai. Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda with Advocate Chitra Rentala, briefed by Trilegal, appeared for Piramal Capital and Housing Finance, which had emerged as the successful Resolution Applicant through CIRP, also moved the High Court.

Advocates Pranav Badheka, Rohan Dakshini, Pooja Kothari and Urvi Gupte, instructed by Rashmikant & Partners, appeared for Kapil Wadhawan who had filed an intervention. Wadhwan was opposing the plea filed by DHFL and seeking discharge in the CBI case himself. Wadhawan had argued that since the “correctness” of NCLT order was challenged before the NCLAT, till the time the appeals are not disposed of, the NCLT order had not attained finality.

Justice S K Shinde, while dictating the order, observed that the facts of the case as brought out by DHFL, in particular subsequent events, have indisputably established change in its management, which has hardly been disputed by Wadhawan. It was noted that the subsequent events like appointing additional directors on the DHFL board had already taken place and those were placed on record before the CBI Court.

These subsequent events caused a change in management and control of the corporate debtor, Justice Shinde observed. The court concluded that the immunities sought by DHFL, though conditional, could be granted. DHFL also pointed out that the conditions had been fulfilled and satisfied.

According to the CBI, Yes Bank had invested Rs 3700 crore in short-term debentures of DHFL for which DHFL had given kickbacks worth Rs 600 crore to Rana Kapoor and family.