TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] where it was held that 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. The Petition is devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed - Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 3009 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2022 - PRASANNA B. VARALE S.M. MODAK, JJ. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, a/w Mr. Pranit Kulkarni, Mr. T.N. Tripathi, Ms. Kalyani Wagle i/by T.N. Tripathi and Co for Petitioner. Ms. A.S. Pai, PP for Respondent No. 3 State. Mr. S.K. Halwasia, Additional Public Prosecutor, for Respondent No. 2 SFIO. *** JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J) 1. The Petitioner, who is carrying out business as diamond importer, exporter and manufacturer in the name and style of his firm M/s. Excel Overseas and is a sole proprietor of the said firm, is approaching this Court with following principal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected not to depart without permission of the Assistant Director (Investigation), SFIO. Again immediately on the next day i.e., 18th August, 2020, second summons was served on the Petitioner when the Petitioner attended office of Assistant Director personally. Copies of these documents are placed on record at Exhibit F1 and F2 . 4. The Petitioner in response to the summons, forwarded E-mails on 18th September, 2020. It was submitted by the Petitioner that due to ill-health of wife who is under medical treatment, Petitioner would attend SFIO on 21st September, 2020 instead of 18th September, 2020. The Petitioner then submitted that as per the telephonic conversation with officer of SFIO, the Petitioner is forwarding certain documents asked to be submitted by SFIO. The Petitioner also forwarded certain documents in relation to participation in auction conducted at Moscow. As the Petitioner was informed not to depart without permission and the Petitioner was required to travel abroad for his business purposes and as the business is 100% export, the Petitioner by communication dated 02nd November, 2020 submitted his request letters for travel abroad. The copies of these letters a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th a rider that the Petitioner cannot depart without permission of authority thus, was the first restriction on traveling of the Petitioner; secondly, issuance of LOC prohibiting the Petitioner from traveling, is clearly unsustainable. It is also submitted that the ground on which the Petitioner sought for the permission to travel abroad namely, his business being 100% export business and secondly, ailment of his wife, are not properly considered by the authorities and only on the ground of one Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi, who was the owner of the said company had played a mischief and fled away and the Petitioner had invested certain amount to purchase share of the said company, putting restriction on Petitioner and preventing him from traveling for an indefinite period, causes serious prejudice to the Petitioner. In support of his submissions, Dr. Chandrachud, placed reliance on following judgments: Om Prakash Bhatt Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 555, Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam and Ors (1967) 3 SCR 525 : AIR 1967 SC 1836, Union of India Vs. Naveen Jindal and Anr (2004) 2 SCC 510. Hence, Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel appearing for the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly Rs. 12,100/- Crore in the entities controlled by Mehul Choksi. 10. That, the investigation, as on date, has revealed that the Companies controlled by Mehul Choksi and Nirav Modi has collectively defaulted approximately Rs. 20,600/- Crores of public money to the banks. 8. It is further stated n the affidavit-in-reply that it revealed in the investigation that the companies controlled by Mehul Choksi and Nirav Modi had collectively defaulted approximately Rs. 20,600/Crores. It further revealed in the investigation that the Petitioner Ramesh Shah had an acquaintance with Mehul Choksi for many years and he had obtained the funds from the entities controlled by Mehul Choksi and the said funds were deployed by the Petitioner to acquire 5.80% shareholding in the said company. It is further submitted that though there was clearance given by SEBI on purchase and sell of shares, certain facts revealed in the investigation about the said transaction. A reference is made to this fact in the affidavit-in-reply is as follows: 14. In this regard it is submitted that 5.8% shareholdings of GGL was sold by the Petitioner within 14 days (between 24th November, 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge to the large public interest . 11. In support of his submissions, Mr. S.K. Halwasia, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, placed heavy reliance on following judgments : State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Chaitya Shah Vs. Union of India and Others 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3967, Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Anr (2010) 11 SCC 528, Hemanta Kumar Banka Vs. Union Of India and Ors 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 440, C. Sivasankaran Vs. Foreign Regional Registration Officer and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 9045, Abdul Kadir Najmudin Sathak Vs. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 791, Nittin Johari Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office 2020 SCC OnLine Del 394, Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari 2019 9 SCC 165 Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Rahul Modi and Ors 2019 5 SCC 266. Thus, learned Counsel prayed that Petition may be dismissed. 12. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for respective parties, material placed on record, we find considerable merit in the submissions of Mr. S.K. Halwasia, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 SFIO. 13. It is not in dispute that the investigation of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in respect of such offences under this Act to Serious Fraud Investigation Office. Sub-section (3) thereof provides that the investigation shall be conducted following the procedure provided under the said Chapter XIV and that the SFIO has to submit its report to the Central Government within such period as is specified in the order. On completion of the investigation, the SFIO is required to submit the investigation report to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government may direct the SFIO to initiate prosecution against the company, its officers, employees or any other person directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of the company. 21. Thus, Shri Halwasia is right in his submissions that special procedure is prescribed and special powers are conferred on the authorities conducting investigation under these Sections of the Companies Act, 2013. The SFIO consists of various experts on different subjects. The investigation entrusted to the SFIO on many occasions involves complex questions and, therefore, the entire process takes longer time than other investigations under the Cr.P.C.. In the present case, the SFIO is investigating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ountry or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time. [In these Guidelines, BoI means Bureau of Immigration. Clause (B) has given list of about 15 Authorities who can make request under Clause (L)] 32. 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 involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
