The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1.25 lakh on Advocate Gulshan Babbar for filing five successive writ petitions containing misleading statements and suppressing material facts in connection with allegations of financial fraud by the IREO Group of Companies and its directors.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a 33-page judgment dated July 2, 2025, dismissed the writ petitions with strong observations against the conduct of the petitioner, holding that the petitions were “not maintainable,” lacked “locus standi,” and were “filed with unclean hands.”
The Court noted that Babbar, who is not a homebuyer or an affected party, had filed five writ petitions (W.P.(CRL) Nos. 614/2024, 862/2024, 1111/2024, 1219/2024, and 2595/2024) making near-identical allegations of siphoning of funds by IREO Group and sought directions for a court-monitored investigation by agencies including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
False Declarations and Misleading Statements
The Court recorded that Babbar repeatedly failed to disclose the pendency of earlier petitions while filing subsequent ones, and falsely declared in affidavits that no similar petitions were pending. For instance, in W.P. (CRL) 2595/2024, he expressly stated:
“The petitioner has not filed any other similar petition before this Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India…” — despite four such petitions being pending at that time.
Justice Arora found this omission deliberate and stated:
“The conduct of the Petitioner in failing to disclose the filing and pendency of the earlier writ petitions, the deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the orders passed by this Court, and the false assertion with respect to being a financial investor in the IREO Projects evidences that the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands.”
Petitioner Not a Homebuyer
In W.P. (CRL) 862/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024, Babbar had claimed to be a homebuyer whose hard-earned money had been “duped” by the IREO Group. However, during proceedings, he conceded that he had no financial investment in any IREO project. The Court observed that this false claim was made in order to establish standing.
ED’s Investigation Already Underway
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted that it had already registered an ECIR against the IREO Group and its director Lalit Goyal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in 2021. Two prosecution complaints had been filed, and property worth ₹1,376 crores had been attached. The ED stated that the reliefs sought by the petitioner had already been addressed in ongoing proceedings.
The Court accepted the ED’s submissions and found that Babbar’s petitions were unnecessary. It observed:
“There is no demonstrable inaction by the ED. The prayers for a court-monitored investigation are unwarranted.”
Court’s Conclusion and Cost Imposition
The Court held that Babbar’s reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak was misplaced, as it related to initiating criminal complaints, not seeking judicially supervised investigations.
Dismissing all five petitions, the Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 each in W.P.(CRL) 614/2024, 862/2024, 1111/2024, 1219/2024 and 2595/2024, totaling ₹1.25 lakh. These are to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund within four weeks.
The Court concluded:
“The Petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, has abused the process of law by filing multiple writ petitions based on the same cause of action, suppressing material facts and making false claims. This conduct cannot be countenanced.”
