Read Time: 05 minutes
The real estate companies—Rudra Buildwell Realty, HR Infracity, and UM Architectures and Contractors—were alleged to have failed to deliver apartments promised in a housing project launched in 2011 under the name "Serra Bella." Gambhir, who served as an additional director for Rudra and also endorsed the project as a brand ambassador, was implicated in the case due to his association with the project.
The Delhi High Court, recently, granted interim relief to Gautam Gambhir in a cheating case filed by homebuyers against three real estate firms. The appellate court while remanding the matter back to the trial case noted that Gambhir was the only individual from Rudra who directly interacted with investors and thus warranted further investigation, especially given his role as a Member of Parliament (MP).
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held, “This Court deems it apposite to direct that the impugned order qua the present petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing”.
The trial court was directed to issue a fresh, detailed order, with specific findings regarding each accused. The special judge emphasized that the trial court should mandate additional investigation if necessary to ensure thorough scrutiny at the charge stage.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, argued that the case arose from an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the Economic Offences Wing police station. It was argued that the allegations against Gautam were limited to his role in a company, M/s Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt. Ltd., where he served as an Additional Director from June 29, 2011, to October 1, 2013.
Senior Advocate Rohatgi contended that the petitioner did not attend any board meetings during his tenure and was, in fact, a victim who had lent ₹6 crores to the company. Of this amount, he recovered ₹4.85 crores in installments over five years.
Senior Advocate Rohatgi argued that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the facts, particularly that he acted solely as a lender and not in an executive or operational capacity. Senior Advocate Rohatgi further highlighted that the chargesheet acknowledged that the ₹4.85 crores Gautam received was repayment of a loan he had advanced to the company. The trial court’s observations noted that Gautam’s role as an Additional Director and brand ambassador was insufficient to establish criminal liability.
The Delhi High Court, upon prima facie consideration, directed that the impugned order concerning Gambhir would remain stayed until the next hearing date. The matter has been listed for further proceedings on January 31, 2025.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi with Advocates Paritosh Budriraja, Pawan Gulati, Divya, Larika, Akash, Sumer and RiaFor Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Laksh Khanna with Advocates Hariom and Prashant GhaiCase Title: Gautam Gambhir v State (CRL.M.C. 8952/2024)
Please Login or Register
