9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. It is trite law that judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself. The Petitioner does not have roots in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the way to boarding the flight, the petitioner was intercepted by officials of the respondent and the petitioner was informed about revocation of her permission to travel abroad. 7. From 23.08.2022 to 03.09.2022, the petitioner made representations to respondents inquiring about the specific reasons for restraining her from travelling to the United Kingdom. Being unaware of the proceedings initiated against her, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 13507/2022 praying for directions to the respondent to provide a copy of any such notice/Look Out Circulars that may have been issued against the petitioner and its basis, or any order that has been passed against her, impeding her travel outside India. 8. Notice was issued by this Court and Serious Fraud Investigation Office came to be impleaded in the present petition as respondent no.3. 9. It was brought to notice of this court by the respondents that an LOC dated 13.06.2022 has come to be opened against the petitioner in light of an investigation initiated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office [hereinafter referred to as SFIO] in terms of an order of 09.03.2022 passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner is not complying with the Order dated 09.11.2022. The matter was adjourned to 13.12.2022. On 13.12.2022, this Court observed that the Petitioner has not been complying with the conditions laid down by this Court vide Order dated 09.11.2022. Relevant portion of the Order dated 13.12.2022 reads as under: 6. On the last date of hearing, vide order dated 28th November 2022 this Court sought status report from the Petitioner, in respect of the compliance of the conditions laid down in paragraph 6 of the aforementioned order dated 9th November, 2022. Report was also sought from the Respondent. The conditions that were to be satisfied in order for the Petitioner to be permitted to travel abroad are as follows: (i) Providing all details in respect to bank accounts that may be maintained by her in India as well as any other jurisdiction within a period of one week. (ii) Authorised Representative shall appear before the SFIO and attend to the summons to be issued in the course of investigation. (iii) Undertaking that she would render cooperation and assistance in investigation and handing over of records or materials which may be under her possession. 7. Today, the Court has partly heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the Court has imposed in order to ensure that all the required documents and details would be supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondents during the course of its investigation. 13. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the matter involves investigation involving a sum of Rs. 738 Crores in respect of four Indian Banks and two foreign banks. The said investigation involves the companies-Net4 India Ltd., Net4 Network Services Ltd., Pipetel Communications Pvt. Ltd. and Trak Online Net India Pvt. Ltd. The said companies are all family run companies which were being operated and run by the Petitioner, her husband and her son. The investigation does not extend only to the Petitioner but also extends to all the four companies. It is further submitted that the husband of the Petitioner has passed away in 2017 and the Petitioner's son is a resident of the UK. 14. It is noted by the Court that the Petitioner had agreed to extend her cooperation in the investigation, however, as per her statements which have been placed on record, which have been shown to the Court, she claims to have no knowledge of the businesses of the aforementioned companies. Her husband having passed aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve that shall appear before SFIO and attend the summons to be issued in the course of investigation. This court observed that the authorised representative appointed by the petitioner seemed to have no knowledge about the petitioner and her family dealings in order to extend cooperation to SFIO. Third condition, being a broad condition, was a requirement of an undertaking from the petitioner that she would render cooperation and assistance in the investigation and in handing over the records or materials which may be under her possession. This court upon analysing the petitioner's statements placed on record noted that the petitioner claims to have no knowledge about the companies as named above. This court further observed that the petitioner was bound to be in possession of the records of the companies along with her son as the husband of the petitioner had expired in the year 2017 in United Kingdom. The petitioner was also, as per this Court's observation unwilling to provide whereabouts of her son and, also the relevant bank statements beyond the period of two years. Therefore, this Court vide order dated 13.12.2022 due to the non-cooperation extended by the petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 5-6 years and was also privy to the personal information relating to the Petitioner, as may be required by SFIO for the purposes of investigation. 20. The Ld. Counsel has also argued that the petitioner has no involvement or knowledge about functioning of the companies as the same were managed by her late husband Mr. Amarjit Singh Sawhney. She was neither involved in the day-to-day affairs nor financial dealings of any of the companies under investigation. The petitioner was not a Key Managerial Personnel as per the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner as per the MCA data was only appointed as a Non-Executive Director, not involved in the day-to-day affairs of Pipetel Communications Ltd. from 15.01.2017 to 23.03.2019 and in Net4 Network Services Ltd. From 11.02.2015 to 25.03.2019. Therefore, as per the Ld. Counsel, the investigation being conducted by SFIO/respondent no.3 pertained only to the parent company Net4 India Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner not being a director or shareholder in the same company merited to be allowed to travel abroad on bonafide medical grounds. Moreover, the petitioner is stated to be estranged from her son and has no knowledge about his whereabouts and bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminal proceedings/trial initiated by Respondent No. 3 or any other law enforcement authority is pending before any Court against the Petitioner nor is it the case of Respondents that the Petitioner has evaded any criminal proceedings/court summons/warrants issued by any Court. 24. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the petitioner was appointed a director in the company Net4 Network Services Limited on 11.02.2015 and she is still continuing as a director in the said company. The petitioner was also appointed as a director in Pipetel Communication Pvt. Ltd and resigned on 25.03.2019. Both of these companies are a subsidiary of Net4 India Limited. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that LOC against the petitioner is in existence and investigation in the entire case is underway. Further, the conduct of the Petitioner is non-cooperative and the petitioner's daughter Ms. Biba Sawhney resides in United Kingdom the properties of the petitioner in India have not been identified, therefore there is a strong apprehension that if the petitioner is allowed to leave the country she may never come back. The presence of the petitioner will be required in India for furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g out of India by the respondents and thereafter a second petition was filed for quashing of the LOC dated 13.06.2022. 29. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has lost her husband in the year 2017 and her children are not residing in India. As per the petitioner's submissions she is estranged from her son and has no familial support in India. Moreover, she has no assets left in India and her residential accommodation is also in the United Kingdom. 30. It is evident to this Court from a sealed cove report submitted by respondent no.3/SFIO that the amount involved under the investigation which is alleged to be laundered is about Rs. 200 crores and the companies under investigation are Net4 India Ltd., Net4 Network Services Ltd. and Pipetel Communications Pvt. Ltd. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was a part of these companies, at one point in time or another and hence a Look Out Circular dated 13.06.2022 was opened against her by the Respondent No. 3 to investigate the laundering of money and the Petitioner's involvement in it. It is also apparent from perusal of the sealed cover report that the investigation is ongoing and that there are allegations the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by this Court in the Order dated 13.12.2022 and a perusal of the sealed cover report submitted by Respondent No. 3/SFIO, it is noted that the allegations against the Petitioner are under investigation and at a crucial stage. As per the guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Home Affairs to enable a court to quash an LOC, there should be no risk in the economic interest of the country and the person should not be a flight risk which would in turn jeopardise the bilateral relations of India with any other country. 35. It is well settled that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country (refer: Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466). 36. It is trite law that judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
