9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 662 - HC - Companies LawValidity of Look-Out Circular - petitioner was prevented from travelling abroad because LOC was issued against him by the Respondent No.3 - Petitioner is seeking declaration that the action on the part of the Respondent No.2 in issuing an endorsement of cancelled without prejudice on the passport of the Petitioner be declared as arbitrary, illegal and without authority and violating the same Articles of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - In the present case the SFIO is investigating into the affairs of the aforementioned companies and its investigation overrides the investigations by other investigating agencies. Therefore recourse to LOC was not unfounded as the Petitioner has definite connection with the investigation as discussed hereinabove. From the facts of the case it is clear that Clause (L) of these Guidelines clearly covers the Petitioner s case as it is detrimental to the economic interests of India and that his departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest. The words economic interests of India and larger public interest are not empty words in the context of the present case because as mentioned earlier the Petitioner is directly involved and was concerned with considerable share-holding of M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited. It involves huge amount of almost Rs.Fifty Crores which requires serious explanation from the Petitioner in the background of the allegations that the money belonged to Mr. Mehul Choksi, who has left India and has not returned back. This transaction is an important part of the entire fraud involving huge amount. Sheer magnitude of the offence and its spread through various banking operations and transfer of money through different modes and different countries shows that it has definitely affected the economic interests of India and the larger public interest is definitely involved and affected. Whether the original LOC issued against the Petitioner stands continued beyond its life of one year? - HELD THAT - Since we were called upon to decide the competing interest, i.e. the right of the Petitioner and the power and duties of the authorities, our order is in respect of the legality, validity and justifiability of the impugned LOC and its extension for one year. The LOC is properly issued, it is extended through proper procedure and the appropriate authority has approved its extension. The Petitioner s presence is necessary for effective investigation into the affairs of Gitanjali Gems Limited and other concerns - There is a strong flight risk as far as the Petitioner is concerned and, therefore, the relief sought for in this Petition cannot be granted. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing and setting aside the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner. 2. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Legality and procedure of issuing and extending the LOC. 4. Petitioner's cooperation with the investigation. 5. Flight risk and potential evasion of investigation by the Petitioner. Detailed Analysis: Quashing and Setting Aside the LOC: The Petitioner sought the quashing and setting aside of the LOC issued against him by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The LOC was issued to prevent the Petitioner from traveling abroad due to his alleged involvement in the affairs of M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited, which was under investigation for fraud. The Petitioner argued that he had fully cooperated with the investigation and that the LOC was issued arbitrarily and without proper authority. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights: The Petitioner claimed that the issuance of the LOC violated his rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. He argued that the action was arbitrary and unfair, curtailing his personal liberty and adversely affecting his business and family life. The Petitioner contended that his case did not fall under any of the contingencies that justified the issuance of an LOC. Legality and Procedure of Issuing and Extending the LOC: The Respondents opposed the Petition, stating that the LOC was issued following proper procedure under the Companies Act, 2013, and the Guidelines for issuing LOCs. The SFIO, established under the Companies Act, was investigating a complex fraud involving M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited and other entities. The investigation revealed significant financial misconduct by Mr. Mehul Choksi, a Director of Gitanjali Gems, who had fled the country. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner had substantial business interests abroad and posed a flight risk, justifying the issuance and extension of the LOC. Petitioner's Cooperation with the Investigation: The Petitioner claimed to have cooperated fully with the investigation by attending summons and providing necessary documents. However, the Respondents contended that the Petitioner had not fully cooperated and had failed to provide crucial information regarding his overseas entities. The investigation required the Petitioner to explain the source of funds used to purchase shares in M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited, which were allegedly linked to Mr. Mehul Choksi. Flight Risk and Potential Evasion of Investigation: The Respondents argued that the Petitioner, being an NRI with significant business interests in Hongkong, posed a flight risk and could evade the investigation if allowed to travel abroad. The Petitioner offered to surrender his parents' passports to demonstrate his commitment to returning to India, but the Respondents found this offer insufficient to mitigate the flight risk. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the LOC was properly issued and extended following the Guidelines and the Companies Act, 2013. The Petitioner had a direct connection with the investigation into the affairs of M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited, involving substantial financial transactions that required thorough investigation. The Court found that the Petitioner posed a significant flight risk, and his presence was necessary for the investigation. Therefore, the Petition was dismissed, and the LOC was upheld, emphasizing the need to balance individual rights with the broader public interest and economic security of the country.
|
