TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that have been issued by the Respondents or any other authority. 2. W.P.(C) 14757/2022 has been filed for quashing the Look Out Circular dated 13.06.2022, issued by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts leading to filing of the present petition are as follows: 4. The petitioner is about 75 years old and is a citizen and permanent resident of United Kingdom and has been granted registration as an Overseas Citizen of India (hereinafter referred to as OCI) Cardholder, duly approved by the respondents in the year 2011. 5. As per the petitioner, in December, 2021, she travelled to India to meet her ailing brother and stayed till August, 2022. In August, 2022, it is stated that her medical condition of the Petitioner deteriorated and she planned to return to the United Kingdom. 6. On 18.08.2022, upon reaching the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and on the way to boarding the flight, the petitioner was intercepted by officials of the respondent and the petitioner was informed about revocation of her permission to travel abroad. 7. From 23.08.2022 to 03.09.2022, the petitioner made representations to respondents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner shall also designate an authorized representative who shall duly appear before the SFIO and attend to all summons that may be issued in the course of investigation. Additionally, the petitioner shall file an undertaking that she will render all cooperation and assistance in the investigation and hand over all records or other material which may be in her possession. 7. Subject to the aforesaid compliances being affected within a period of one week from today the petition may be called again on 28.11.2022, to review progress as also for considering the passing of orders permitting the petitioner to travel in the interim notwithstanding the existence of the LOC which stands impugned. 8. The records which were placed for the perusal of the Court in a sealed cover are handed back to Mr. Ahluwalia." 13. On 28.11.2022 when the matter came up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India that the Petitioner is not complying with the Order dated 09.11.2022. The matter was adjourned to 13.12.2022. On 13.12.2022, this Court observed that the Petitioner has not been complying with the conditions laid down by this Court vide Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the course of investigation. 11. Insofar as this condition is concerned, the authorised representative who has been appointed on behalf of the Petitioner is one Mr. Himanshu Kohli , a Company Secretary (CS) who only qualified as a CS in 2020. He is present in Court today and upon being queried by the Court he submits that he has not met the Petitioner and has been engaged recently by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. The Court at this stage is not satisfied with the authorised representative as he does not seem to have any knowledge of the Petitioner or her family dealings in order to extend any cooperation to the SFIO. The court clearly gets the impression that a novice has been simply engaged for showing compliance, which is merely lip service, considering the amount of public money obtained from the banks, that is alleged to have been siphoned off. III. Undertaking that she would render cooperation and assistance in investigation and handing over of records or materials which may be under her possession. 12. This condition is a broad condition which the Court has imposed in order to ensure that all the required documents and details would be suppli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank statements of the foreign bank accounts of the Petitioner have not been disclosed. The Petitioner was directed to get the bank statements and submit the same to the Respondent No. 3 and the matter was adjourned to 15.05.2023. 16. A perusal of the above orders shows that the investigation in the case involving the Petitioner amounted to a sum of Rs. 208 Crores in respect of four Indian Banks and two foreign banks. The companies under scanner being Net4 India Ltd., Net4 Network Services Ltd., Pipetel Communications Pvt. Ltd. and Trak Online Net India Pvt. Ltd.. These companies were alleged by the respondents to be family run companies which were being operated and run by the Petitioner, her husband and her son. This Court observed in respect of the 3 conditions laid down vide order dated 09.11.2022 that in regards to providing all details in respect of bank accounts that may be maintained by the petitioner in India as well as in any other jurisdiction, the petitioner failed to cooperate as she did not provide bank account statements beyond 2 years period. Second condition as per the order was to appoint an authorised representative that shall appear before SFIO and attend the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was also pointed out that on 31.01.2023 HSBC UK had communicated to the petitioner that they were unable to provide any bank statements of the account in her name as the bank account was closed in the year 2018. Thereby establishing the bonafide of the petitioner and cooperation on her part by providing all details and documents, as requested by the respondents without any ill-intent to withhold any information. 19. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the hearing on 19.10.2022 before this court, the Petitioner had volunteered to get her statement recorded by Respondent No. 3 despite having suffered a cardiac attack on 19.09.2022. Pursuant to subsequent summons received, further statement of the Petitioner was also recorded by officials of Respondent No. 3/SFIO on 13.03.2023 for almost 3-4 hours at Aashlok Hospital, Safdarjung. Thereafter, in compliance with the Court's orders, the petitioner appointed Mr. Rohit Jain as her Authorised Representative to appear before the SFIO/respondent no.3 and lend all cooperation in the ongoing investigation. Mr. Rohit Jain was personally known to the Petitioner for last 5-6 years and was also privy to the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the orders passed by this Court and it is at this juncture a bonafide urgent need of the petitioner, as per the medical prescriptions placed on record, to travel to the U.K. to get the pacemaker re-installed in her heart, as the earlier pace-maker which was installed in India, has shifted from its place. The petitioner is also undergoing Psychiatric and Neuro treatment for depression, stress, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and memory loss. The cost of the surgery as per the doctors is approximately 17-18 lakhs in India, whereas the petitioner being a UK Citizen, is entitled to free treatment under the National Health Scheme by the UK Government. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has no residence and familial support in India and has been residing for the past one year with her nephew's family. 23. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the investigation is till date at a nascent stage where complete documentation is also not available to summon the concerned officials. The Look Out Circular was illegally issued in absence of any material on record to establish the involvement of Petitioner in the alleged transactions. No criminal proceedings/trial in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive Director, in contravention of submissions made by the petitioner that she was only a Non-Executive Director and had no role to play in the day-to-day affairs and financial dealings of the companies. 26. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 referred to the details of certain bank accounts held by the petitioner in India which were not disclosed by the petitioner before SFIO, all of which is detailed in the sealed cover report. Further, the Ld. Counsel submits that the petitioner has also been found to be a signatory to agreements on behalf of one of the companies under investigation. Therefore, there is an apprehension that the petitioner might attempt in delaying the process and escape from the investigation, thereby causing damage to the larger public interest involved and thereby being a high flight risk. 27. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and pursued the material on record placed before this court in both the connected writ petitions. 28. As per the material on record the petitioner is a 75 year old British Citizen and an OCI Cardholder. The present writ petitions came to be filed when the petitioner was barred at the Delhi airport from travelling out of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to note that the issuance of LOC is guided by principles laid down in Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Assistant Director & Ors., ILR (2010) VI Delhi 706, according to which Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The same was further amended by Office Memorandum No. 25016/10/2017-IMM dated. 05.12.2017 which made the following additions to the extant guidelines: "In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as would not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in Clause (b) of the above-referred OM, if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interest of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time". 34. In view of ....