TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of RAM JETHMALANI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2011 (7) TMI 844 - SUPREME COURT ] had taken judicial notice of the fact thousands of crores of Indian rupees are stashed away abroad in foreign bank accounts posing a serious threat to the financial health and economy of the country. Considering the fact the investigation is at initial/crucial stage and the petitioner allegedly is evading queries and has promised to give replies only on 09.12.2022 and millions have been transferred by him to foreign accounts per investigation till date, hence the discretion needs to be exercised cautiously moreso when the petitioner s son has not returned to India for the last two years and is not co-operating. Thus, considering the allegations of siphonin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration circular in relation to the affairs of M/s. Punj Lloyd Limited (PLL) of which the petitioner herein was a promoter/director. No official communication, however, has been received by the petitioner in respect of issuance of any LOC. 3. It is alleged the petitioner herein was a promoter of PLL, engaged in engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services which includes EPC services in oil, gas and infrastructure sectors and trading of steel outside India. 4. In 2019 the National Company Law Tribunal, PB, New Delhi in CP No.(IB)-731 (PB)/2018 titled as ICICI Bank vs. Punj Lloyd Limited vide order dated 08.03.2019 had directed initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process of PLL under the provisions of IBC. Pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PLL and its subsidiaries, based in India or in overseas jurisdiction and has been associated with more than 100 such like companies. 7. It is alleged the petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation and is giving evasive replies and is shirking from holding any accountability and is deliberately seeking time to provide information. He has admitted his son Mr.Shiv Punj was also associated in the business of PLL. 8. The learned counsel also highlighted the role of the petitioner in M/s. Domus Lloyd Contracting Limited (DLCL) in which PLL has a major stake. He refers to the statement of Mr. Rahul Maheshwari who stated PLL manages to generate liquidity for Mr. Shiv Punj in Dubai and both father and son, the promoters of PLL, have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to him. The investigation also reveal infusion of funds through ATM cash deposits to the tune of AED 10,461,076.77 and it has further come to the notice these accounts receive huge value inward wire transfer from many companies including M/s.Uphill Profit Worldwide Limited, wherein the petitioner and his son are the beneficial owners. 11. Similarly, the Income Tax Department has also found in investigation a quantum of 1.7 million USD being sent to M/s.Trejo Associated SA in British Virgin Islands (BVI). Secondly, an amount of GBP 2,12,907 first parked in the Julius Baer Bank Singapore account of petitioner was transferred to M/s. Uphill Profit Worldwide Limited in which the petitioner and his son are the beneficial owners. It is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or such departure ought not to be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time. 14. Several Courts have invoked the amended OM of 2017 while upholding the power of issuance of LOC where the economic interests of India are involved, viz. [ Suman Gupta vs. Union of India Ors. Criminal Writ Petition 1313/2020 Para 6; S. Martin v. Deputy Commissioner of Police 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 426 GSC Rao v. State of UP (2019) 106 ACC 437]. 15. The issuance of an LOC is in nature of an administrative action and the scope of judicial review is limited. While reviewing administrative action it was held Courts do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reign assets of the petitioner only came to light in 2019-2020 and therefore his prior travels would make no difference to the present case as offences under the Black Money Act has only been revealed from 2020 onwards and proceedings have been initiated thereunder. 20. Thus, considering the fact the investigation is at initial/crucial stage and the petitioner allegedly is evading queries and has promised to give replies only on 09.12.2022 and millions have been transferred by him to foreign accounts per investigation till date, hence the discretion needs to be exercised cautiously moreso when the petitioner s son has not returned to India for the last two years and is not co-operating. Thus, considering the allegations of siphoning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
