TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idavit, the Applicant/ Petitioner No. 1 now seeks to travel from 30.06.2025 to 30.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant/ Petitioner No. 1 would also rely upon Orders dated 05.03.2025, 29.04.2025 and 15.05.2025, as modified by Order dated 03.06.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Court, Chandigarh, in UID No. HR0089. 4. A perusal of these Orders would show that the permission granted by the Court is in respect of cases registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ["PMLA"]. The Orders permitting Petitioner No. 1 to travel relate to cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation ["CBI"] and the Enforcement Directorate ["ED"] in respect of various offences, which are also the subject matter of the present proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant/ Petitioner No. 1 also refers to paragraph 9 of the said Order dated 05.03.2025 which reads as follows: "9. Consequently, the instant application is hereby allowed. Passport is ordered to be released to the applicant against proper receipt and identification. Further applicant is permitted to travel the places i.e. USA (New York, New Have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner No. 1 out of India would be detrimental to the economic interest of the country. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the reply filed by the Respondent No.2/Bank. 10. This Court notes that the LOC at the behest of the CBI has been closed w.e.f. 01.08.2024 and this fact has also been captured in the Order passed by the learned Trial Court. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the LOC at the behest of the ED has been suspended vide Order dated 29.04.2025. 11. It is also worth-noting that vide Order dated 27.05.2024 in C.W.P. No.3201/2022, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has set aside the declaration of Fraud and also quashed the FIR. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remitted the matter back to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in respect of the quashing of FIR, the declaration of fraud remains set aside. 12. It has also been contended that the FIR and all consequential proceedings on the complaint of the Bank are currently stayed. 13. This Court has also perused the reply filed by the Bank. The only reason given by the Respondent Bank for the purpose of supporting the LOC is as follows: "........Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is any violation of conditions on the part of the Applicant/ Petitioner No. 1. 20. The Applicant/ Petitioner No. 1 shall also deposit a Fixed Deposit Receipt ["FDR"] in the sum of Rs. 25 lacs in his own name before this Court which he shall not be able to encash without permission of this Court and the said amount shall be forfeited in case there is any violation of conditions on the part of the Applicant/Petitioner No. 1. 21. List on 13.06.2025 before concerned Joint Registrar for compliance. CM APPL. 34562/2025 (By Petitioner No.2. seeking suspension of LOC to travel abroad) in W.P.(C) 7850/2025 22. This is an application filed on behalf of Applicant/ Petitioner No. 2 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of suspension of LOC issued by Respondent No. 1 at the behest of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and for permitting Petitioner No. 2 to travel abroad from 15.06.2025 to 15.07.2025. 23. Learned counsel for the Applicant/ Petitioner No.2 would also rely upon Orders dated 29.04.2025 and 15.05.2025 as modified by Order dated 03.06.2025, passed by the Court of the Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Court, Chandigarh, in UID no. HR0089. 24. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t permission of this Court and the said amount shall be forfeited in case there is any violation of conditions on the part of the applicant/accused." 26. Learned counsel for the Applicant/ Petitioner No. 2 would state that similar conditions can be imposed upon him and he may be granted the relief of permission to travel. 27. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank opposes the present application, stating that a large scale fraud has been committed by the Applicant/ Petitioner No. 2 against the Central Bank of India and other consortium banks, amounting to Rs. 1626.74 crores. 28. Learned counsel for the Respondents would also state that there is a grave risk in allowing Petitioner No. 2 to travel and the departure of the Applicant/ Petitioner No. 2 out of India would be detrimental to the economic interest of the country. 29. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the reply filed by Respondent No.2/Bank. 30. This Court notes that the LOC at the behest of the CBI has been closed w.e.f. 01.08.2024 and this fact has also been captured in the Order passed by the learned Trial Court. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that ....