2020 (2) TMI 1692 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - no appearance inspite of service of SCN - Allegation of utilisation of FDI proceeds for claiming development rights of agricultural land owners by Indian entities - HELD THAT - In spite of service of notice, the private respondents, except respondent no.4, have not entered appearance, neither have the officers of the respondent no.4, except respondent no.14 in WP(C) No.10337/2019 entered appearance. Keeping in view the serious nature of allegations made in the petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1,2,3 and 31, the private respondent companies in the petitions, that is the respondent nos.5 to 14 in WP(C) 8068/2019, and respondent nos.16 to 25 in WP(C) 10337/2019, are restrained from creating any third party interest or parting with the possession of their immovable properties till the next date of hearing, except in compliance with an order passed by any statutory Authority/Investigating Agency. List on 20th July, 2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Forensic audit of respondent no.4
2. Investigation into related companies of IREO Group
3. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) direction
4. Allegations of fund siphoning
5. Violations under Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA)
6. Appearance of private respondents and officers
7. Restraining orders on private respondent companies

Analysis:
1. The petitioners claim that no forensic audit has been conducted into the affairs of respondent no.4, despite submissions to the Supreme Court and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). They allege siphoning of funds from respondent no.4 into related companies, necessitating an investigation.

2. The petitioners' counsels argue that other companies within the IREO Group also require investigation, indicating a broader scope of potential financial irregularities.

3. The counsel for respondent no.2 informs that SFIO has directed inspectors to investigate the affairs of IREO Group under Section 212(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. It is revealed that substantial funds were received by IREO Group companies as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with potential violations under FEMA being scrutinized.

4. Despite the opportunity granted, none of the respondents, except respondent no.4, have filed counter affidavits. The respondents are given additional time to submit their responses, with a subsequent deadline for any rejoinders.

5. Private respondents, excluding respondent no.4, have not appeared, raising concerns about their engagement with the legal proceedings. Only respondent no.14 from WP(C) No.10337/2019 has entered appearance among the respondent officers.

6. Considering the gravity of the allegations and submissions, the court restrains private respondent companies from creating third-party interests or disposing of immovable properties until the next hearing date, except as authorized by relevant authorities. The case is listed for further proceedings on a specified date.