Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2021 (11) TMI HC This
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.
|