9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024 to 10.09.2024, was declined. 2. The present petition was instituted on 07.06.2024 and notice was issued to the respondents viz., respondent No.1-SFIO Serious Fraud Investigation Office and respondent No.2-Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. A reply has already been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, which is the main contesting party. 3. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the investigation by the SFIO into the affairs of Fortis Healthcare Limited ["FHL"] and Religare Enterprises Limited ["REL"] and other sister concerns besides role of various individuals associated with such companies including that of the petitioner commenced from 17.02.2018 purportedly under Section 212(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 but till date no complaint/final report has been filed by the SFIO against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been arrested so far and even in December, 2021 when an application was filed by the petitioner for surrendering himself before the Court, the same was opposed by the SFIO, and rather, in its reply, it was stated that the status of the petitioner was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent Courts except by the learned Special Judge. 7. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate also pointed out that even the co-accused Mr. Kavi Arora, who is under investigation by the SFIO has been granted permission to go abroad in W.P. (Crl.) 12852/2023 by this Court vide orders dated 06.11.2023, 22.03.2024, 01.05.2024 and lastly on 17.05.2024. 8. It is vehemently urged that the investigation has been ongoing for the last more than six years but the petitioner is no longer in control of the affairs of the companies which are under investigation. It has been urged that the wife of the petitioner has been residing with him in India all along and only recently she has gone to the UK to attend the graduation ceremony of her son inter alia acknowledging that all the four sons of the petitioner are presently living abroad. 9. Attention of this Court is also invited to a short affidavit of the petitioner dated 18.06.2024 filed pursuant to directions of the learned Single Judge(Vacation Judge) of this Court dated 14.06.2024, to the effect that he is neither a share holder nor a Director in 'REL' and/or any of its group/associate companies; and that he was a shareholder/Director in RHC Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s vehemently urged that the said deposition (referred above) is false, inasmuch as it was the petitioner who was holding 99% shareholding in Shiv Holding Private Limited("SHPL") which was holding 50% stakes in RHC and it was pointed out that the investigation has so far revealed that funds have been diverted to various off shore companies. 13. Attention of the Court has been invited to the Income Tax Returns ["ITR"] filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2022-23 (filed on 28.07.2022) wherein the petitioner himself has accounted for his shareholding in different companies based in India as well as abroad. At this juncture, it is pertinent to indicate that a careful perusal of the ITR shows that the petitioner has himself claimed that he has shareholding in three companies based abroad viz. in Forthill International Limited and RHC based on the book value of the shareholding. 14. Learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that during the investigation, it has come forth that equity and preference shares of RCML were been found to be long term investment in the companies viz., Religare Capital Market International (Mauritius) Limited; Religare Capital Market International (U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel has relied on the decisions in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director, CBI 2010 SCC OnLine Delhi 2699; Hemanta Kumar Banka v. UOI Writ Petition (Crl.) 53/2021vide judgment dated 23.02.2021 by Calcutta High Court; and Mr. Chaitya Shah v. UOI Criminal Writ Petition No. 3058/2021 vide judgment dated 17.11.2021 and it was vehemently urged that in case liberty is granted to the petitioner to go abroad, in all likelihood he would not return to India since his entire family is now happily settled abroad with sound financial base. 17. In rebuttal, Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate has reiterated that the petitioner does not own any properties abroad much less in the UK or anywhere else. It submitted that that petitioner is willing to provide sufficient securities so as to ensure that he would be returning back to India after attending the graduation ceremony of his sons. Heavy reliance is placed on the plethora of judicial orders passed by the learned Judges of the District Courts as well as orders of this Court, particularly Sanjana Desai v. Bank of India W.P. (C) 1872/2021 dated 01.03.2021; Uday Jayant Desai v. UOI W.P. (C) 10540/2022 dated 02.05.2023; Parvin Juneja v. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which prima facie bring out that he has assets/shareholding in the form of equity & preference shares in the company viz., Forthill International Limited, RHC Holding Pte. Limited situated in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Singapore. 22. As highlighted by the learned Standing Counsel, the investigation conducted so far also brings out that during the relevant time i.e. 2010-11 to 2017-18 when the petitioner was at the helm of affairs of 'REL' and 'FHL', it had invested funds amounting to Rs. 700/- crores in wholly owned subsidiary, namely Religare Capital Market Limited ["RCML"] and subsequently RCML invested these funds in its stepped down subsidiary, namely Religare Capital Market International (Mauritius) Limited ["RCMIML"], based in Mauritius. The investigation also prima facie brings out that such investments were made in the 'RCMIML' during the financial year 2011-12 to financial year 2016-17. 23. It is pertinent to note that evidently, a Tripartite Agreement dated 13.02.2012 had been entered between RCH Holding Limited, 'REL' and RCML pursuant to which, RCH Holding Limited was enjoined upon to provide financial support to 'RCML' for its financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner that the petitioner is willing to provide sufficient security by nominating any member of the family to remain in India coupled with the fact that the mother and mother-in-law of the petitioner are already residing in India, is only noted to be rejected. To my mind, any such disposition would be utterly sham and illusionary since in the event the petitioner misuses the liberty to go abroad, what would the SFIO or the State do with such human security except to raise a plea to forfeit their undertakings/bonds, which would be insufficient. 28. The plea by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that superior Courts have granted permission to go abroad wherein thousands of crores of rupees have been allegedly siphoned off, does not cut any ice either. The decision in the case of Sanjana Desai (supra) was one where the accused was facing investigation by the CBI Central Bureau of Investigation and permission was granted by the Court to enable the accused to have medical treatment in USA/UK. The decision in the case of Uday Jayant Desai (supra) was one where the accused was facing proceedings under Section 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC besides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
