2023 (8) TMI 1460 - HC - Companies Law

Prayer for a direction to the respondents to furnish the reason for denying permission to the petitioner to travel outside India and provide copies of order/circular (including Look Out Circular)/instructions issued against the Petitioner by the Respondents - HELD THAT - In view of the observations made by this Court in PAWANJOT KAUR SAWHNEY VERSUS BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION ANR. 2022 (12) TMI 1513 - DELHI HIGH COURT 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. 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. 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 the country. The allegation against the Petitioner is that she is actively involved in siphoning off a substantial amount of about Rs. 208 crores and the investigation against the Petitioner, as is revealed from the sealed cover, is at a crucial stage. The apprehension of the SFIO that if the Petitioner is now permitted to go out of the country it would not be possible to get her in the country, cannot be said based on nil evidence or that this apprehension is unjustified. This court is, therefore, not inclined to quash the LOC dated 13.06.2022 and allow the petitioner to travel abroad - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of permission to travel outside India.
2. Quashing of Look Out Circular (LOC) dated 13.06.2022.

Summary:

1. Denial of Permission to Travel Outside India:
The petitioner, a 75-year-old British citizen and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, was denied permission to travel outside India. She filed W.P.(C) No. 13057/2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking reasons for this denial and copies of related orders or circulars. The petitioner was intercepted at the Delhi airport on 18.08.2022 and informed about the revocation of her travel permission. Despite making representations to the respondents, she remained unaware of the proceedings against her, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

2. Quashing of Look Out Circular (LOC) dated 13.06.2022:
The petitioner also filed W.P.(C) 14757/2022 to quash the LOC issued by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on 13.06.2022. The LOC was issued in light of an investigation initiated by the SFIO based on an order dated 09.03.2022 by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The investigation involved the affairs of Net4 India Limited and its subsidiaries. The petitioner suffered a cardiac arrest on 19.09.2022 and underwent medical treatment, which she cited as a reason for needing to travel abroad.

Court's Observations and Decision:
The court conditionally allowed the petitioner to travel abroad on 09.11.2022, subject to compliance with specific conditions, including providing bank account details and appointing an authorized representative to cooperate with the SFIO. However, the petitioner failed to fully comply with these conditions, leading the court to observe non-cooperation on her part. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide bank account statements beyond a two-year period and appointed a representative with insufficient knowledge to assist the SFIO.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the economic offences involved, amounting to Rs. 208 crores, and the petitioner's alleged role in siphoning off funds. The court also noted that the petitioner's son, a co-accused, was absconding and that the petitioner lacked roots in India, raising concerns about her potential flight risk. The court referenced guidelines from Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors. and Office Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the issuance of LOCs.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation and that allowing her to travel abroad posed a significant flight risk. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions and upheld the LOC dated 13.06.2022, preventing the petitioner from traveling outside India.