TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 travel to Tanzania again and accordingly boarded a flight from Kolkata to Mumbai for the said purpose on January 24, 2021 arriving at Mumbai on January 25, 2021. The petitioner went for immigration clearance, but was disallowed to cross the immigration channel. The Immigration Officer concerned informed the petitioner that such restraint was imposed pursua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avels 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 Office Memorandum dated October 12, 2018, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners' Division (Immigration Section) introduced such amendment in the original Office Memorandum dated October 27, 2010, which governs LOCs. Thus, it is argued that the said functionaries of respondent no.3 had authority to request for issuance of LOCs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns. 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 mentioned, under the respective entries for the subject "FIR No." and "Section of Law (where applicable)", "not available on record." Thus, there was no justification for issuance of LOC or any request being made thereof in the said case. 20. On a bare perusal, it is clear that none of the aforesaid cited orders are relevant to the present case. Even apa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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-national elements to the economic offenders hampering the interests of India as a whole. 25. The Office Memorandum dated October 4, 2018, apart from the above provisions, also clarified that the guidelines enable LOCs against persons who are fraudsters/persons who take loans, willfully default/lend money and then escape to foreign jurisdictions, since such....