<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 1016 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785260</link>
    <description>A Look-Out Circular cannot be sustained unless the governing legal and guideline-based conditions for restricting departure are met. The Court held that the SFIO investigation was still pending, no interim or final investigation report had been submitted, and the material did not establish a cognizable offence or any completed statutory basis for prosecution under the Companies Act. It also rejected reliance on public interest, economic interest, and mere pendency of investigation, finding no material that travel would jeopardise national interests or that the person would evade process or fail to return. The travel restriction was therefore quashed and the petitioner was allowed to travel.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:41:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=880205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1016 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785260</link>
      <description>A Look-Out Circular cannot be sustained unless the governing legal and guideline-based conditions for restricting departure are met. The Court held that the SFIO investigation was still pending, no interim or final investigation report had been submitted, and the material did not establish a cognizable offence or any completed statutory basis for prosecution under the Companies Act. It also rejected reliance on public interest, economic interest, and mere pendency of investigation, finding no material that travel would jeopardise national interests or that the person would evade process or fail to return. The travel restriction was therefore quashed and the petitioner was allowed to travel.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>