Delhi HC grants interim relief to Gautam Gambhir, stays order against him in cheating case
New Delhi, Nov 18: The proceedings in a cheating case against former cricketer and Indian coach Gautam Gambhir will remain stayed, the Delhi High Court ordered on Monday.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the interim order on a plea by Gambhir challenging the sessions court verdict.
The sessions court had set aside a judicial magistrate's order that had discharged him in the case in which some home buyers were allegedly cheated.
Granting the relief to Gambhir, who is presently in Australia as the head coach of the Indian cricket team, the high court also sought response of the Delhi Police on his plea and listed the matter for further hearing on January 31, 2025.
"In the meantime, the impugned order against the petitioner shall remain stayed," the judge said, and added that it will pass a detailed order.
Gambhir was represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and lawyer Paritosh Budhiraja.
In its October 29 order, the sessions court said the magisterial court's decision reflected "inadequate expression of mind" in deciding the allegations against Gambhir.
"The allegations also merit further investigation into the role of Gautam Gambhir," it had said.
The sessions court had remanded the case back to the magisterial court, directing it to pass a detailed fresh order.
The cheating case was filed against real estate firms Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt Ltd, H R Infracity Pvt Ltd, U M Architectures and Contractors Ltd and Gambhir, who was a director and brand ambassador of the companies' joint venture.
The accused had reportedly jointly promoted and advertised an upcoming housing project at Indirapuram in Uttar Pradesh's Ghaziabad called 'Serra Bella' in 2011 which was renamed in 2013 as 'Pavo Real'.
The prosecution alleged the complainants booked flats in the projects and paid various amounts, ranging between Rs 6 lakh and Rs 16 lakh after being lured by the advertisements and brochures.
However, even after the payments, no infrastructural or other significant development was made on the plot in question and the land remained bereft of any progress till 2016, the time of making of the complaint, it added.
The complainants, it alleged, subsequently learnt the proposed project was neither developed according to the site plan nor approved by the competent state government authorities.
The companies purportedly stopped entertaining queries and phone calls from the complainants, who further learnt the site of the housing project in question was embroiled in litigation and a stay order had been passed by the Allahabad High Court over the possession of the land in 2003.
The sessions court had noted that Gambhir was the only one who had a "direct interface with the investors" in his capacity as a brand ambassador and though he had been discharged, the magisterial court's order made no reference to him paying Rs 6 crore to Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt Ltd and receiving Rs 4.85 crore from the company.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
