A Delhi court on Wednesday took cognisance of the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate against entrepreneur Robert Vadra and said the material placed before it was sufficient for the matter to proceed further.
Special Judge Sushant Changotra of the Rouse Avenue Court also issued summons to Vadra and several associated individuals and entities in connection with the case.
Court Takes Cognisance, Issues Summons
The court said the prosecution complaint filed by the ED, along with the broader scrutiny of documents, disclosed sufficient material for proceeding with the present complaint case against Vadra. In its order, the court said it was taking cognisance of offences under Section 3 read with Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the Act, against several accused.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
Apart from Vadra, summons were also issued to Kewal Singh Virk, Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd, now Skylight Hospitality LLP, Sky Light Realty Private Limited, Real Earth Estates Private Limited, now Real Earth Estates LLP, and Blue Breeze Trading Private Limited, now Blue Breeze Trading LLP.
Case Linked to 2008 Gurugram Land Deal
The case stems from a 2008 land transaction in Gurugram in which a company linked to Vadra allegedly acquired 3.5 acres of land for ₹7.5 crores through a fraudulent sale deed without making the declared payment at the time of registration. It is alleged that the land was given as a bribe so that Vadra could obtain a housing licence in the same village using his influence over the then Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda.
Four years later, after the licence was issued, the land was sold to DLF for ₹58 crores. The screenshots also state that around 350 acres of land in Wazirabad, Gurugram, was allegedly wrongly allotted to DLF, from which it earned a profit of around ₹5,000 crores.
Judge’s Observations on Further Probe
In his order, Judge Changotra said the ED’s prosecution complaint did not disclose whether DLF or its officials had been investigated in the case. At the same time, he said he expected that further investigation would include the facts noted against DLF.
The court said further investigation should take those facts within its scope to ensure complete justice in the case and added that if overt acts or omissions were discovered on the part of DLF Universal Pvt Ltd, the role of the persons responsible for those acts or omissions should also be thoroughly investigated.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
