TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hension that the petitioner might not be in a position to repay the loan. No distinction can be drawn, merely on territorial grounds, between the UCO Bank of India (respondent no.3) and its branch at Singapore. The branches of a bank are, as the nomenclature suggests, outlets of the bank itself and not separate juristic entities. The transactions carried out through those branches are those which have, at their source, the parent branch which, in the present case, is the UCO Bank in India. Admittedly, the UCO Bank is a nationalized bank and a Government of India undertaking. Thus, the financial interests of the Singapore Branch of respondent no.3 are inextricably linked with those of the respondent no.3 itself and, consequently, with the interests of Indian public money - The winding up and bankruptcy orders were sufficient to freeze the business of the petitioner in Singapore, which was the source of repayment of loan by the petitioner to respondent no.3 through its Singapore branch. This, in turn, directly affected the Indian interests vested in respondent no.3. The only other sticking point, as regards authority of the bank officials to issue a request, was obliterated vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holds a Permanent Resident Card bearing Identity Card No.S7762646H issued by the Government of Singapore and conducts business primarily at Singapore. The said Permanent Resident Card is valid till November 15, 2021. 3. The petitioner carries on trading through his company at Singapore and applied for credit facilities with various banks, including the branch of the respondent no.3 (UCO Bank) at Singapore. Respondent no.3 is a Government undertaking bank of India. 4. Admittedly, the High Court at Singapore passed an order on October 9, 2020 in Case no. HC/CWU 137/2020, directing the petitioner's company to be wound up. 5. Vide order dated November 19, 2020, the Singapore High Court, in Case No. HC/B 1472/2020, issued a Bankruptcy Order against the petitioner. 6. Such orders were issued on applications of financing companies (not respondent no.3). 7. In connection with his business, the petitioner travels to various destinations including India. On October 8, 2020, allegedly in connection with his business, the petitioner had travelled to Tanzania on a Business VISA and returned to India on January 13, 2021. On January 25, 2021, the petitioner was scheduled to tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest of the Indian populace. 14. Although no Indian law has been violated, it is argued that the petitioner has been declared to be bankrupt and his company wound up, which raises sufficient apprehension that the loans taken by the petitioner from the Singapore Branch of the respondent no.3 would not be repaid. In such context, if the petitioner travels out of India, respondent no.3, which is the parent body of the Singapore Branch, will have no means to enforce repayment of the loans taken by the petitioner from its Singapore Branch. 15. Since the quantum of the loan taken by the petitioner is huge, if the petitioner were to leave India, there would be a substantial dent in the economic interest of the country as well. Learned counsel relies in particular on the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated October 4, 2018 (annexed at page 79 of the Affidavit-in-opposition of respondent no.3) to indicate that the Chairman of the State Bank of India/Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officers of other public sector banks were included within the authorities at whose behest Look-Out Circulars could be issued. Pursuant thereto, by an Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any penal statute, as contemplated in the guidelines governing LOCs. 18. Under such circumstances, it was held that the economic interest of the country as a whole would not suffer and an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the respondents from preventing the writ petitioner therein from travelling abroad, subject to certain restrictions. 19. The next order cited by the petitioner was passed on February 6, 2020 in WP No.23412(W) of 2019 (UCO Bank vs. Dr. Siten Saha Roy and others) on a review application heard along with a contempt application filed in connection with the main writ petition. It was held that no offence, as contemplated in the relevant guidelines, was disclosed against the petitioner therein, sufficient to be detrimental to the economic interest of India at large. The concept of economic interest of India was discussed briefly and it was observed that no exceptional case or adverse effect on such economic interest as a whole had been made out in the review petition or the original request for issuance of LOC issued by the Bank. Non-disclosure of any offence was considered, particularly, in the light of the request for issuance of LOC, which ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner to respondent no.3 through its Singapore branch. This, in turn, directly affected the Indian interests vested in respondent no.3. 24. The parent Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010 clearly stipulates not only cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court, but also touches upon larger national interest in Clause (j) thereof. Moreover, the said Memorandum was subsequently supplemented by several Memoranda, including the Office Memorandum dated December 5, 2017 which categorically stipulated that in exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases as would not be covered by the guidelines given in the parent O.M., whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of the authorities mentioned in Clause (b) of October 27, 2010 O.M. if it appears to such authority, based on inputs received, that the departure of such person is detrimental to the bilateral relationships with any country and economic interests of India (among other grounds). Thus, the conspectus of the issuance of LOCs was broadened from mere suspected terrorists and anti-nation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
