TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Standing Counsel for ED with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Rahul Khanna, Mr. Birendra Singh, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advocates. Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Mr. Vanshul Pali, GP, Ms. Nidhi Adarsh, Advocate for R2. AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs: "A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing Respondent No. 2 to disclose and produce the purported Look Out Circular(s) issued and operating against the Petitioner before this Hon'ble Court; and B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, thereby directing the Respondents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued against him at the behest of Respondent No. 1. 6. The petitioner thereafter sent emails dated 05.04.2026 and 21.06.2026 to reconsider the Look Out Circular issued against him, however Respondent No. 1 did not reply to the petitioner's requests. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition. Brief facts in W.P.(C) 12988/2026 8. Briefly stated, the Petitioner is a resident of Singapore, where he resides with his wife and children and is engaged in employment/business for gain. 9. On 15.01.2018, the Petitioner was summoned by the learned Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts in proceedings arising out of a complaint dated 26.07.2017 filed by the SFIO under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o an accused in the same proceedings, was stopped at the airport and informed of an LOC issued against him. 13. The Petitioner thereafter, requested Respondent No. 1, vide email dated 21.06.2026, to withdraw the LOCs, however, no response was received from Respondent No. 1. 14. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. Submissions of the parties 15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issuance and continuance of the LOCs against the petitioners is arbitrary, having been issued in a casual and mechanical manner without due application of mind. 16. He submits that the petitioners have extended full and unconditional cooperation to Respondent No. 1 throughout the course of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng investigation under the PMLA, having regard to the facts and circumstances prevailing at the relevant time. 20. He submits that, though it is an admitted position that the petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 1 pursuant to the summons issued to him, his statements were recorded and he furnished the documents and information sought from him, such cooperation does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to revocation of the LOC. 21. He submits that the investigation against the petitioner is still underway, his role is yet to be conclusively determined and his presence may be required for the purposes of further investigation. Analysis 22. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. 23. At the outset, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended their cooperation to the investigation by furnishing the documents and information sought from them and having their statements recorded. Thereafter, no further summons, notice or request for any document, information or clarification has been issued to either of the petitioners. 27. An LOC is a coercive measure and cannot be resorted to as a matter of routine merely because an investigation is pending. Its issuance and continued operation must be justified by circumstances warranting such restraint upon the right to travel. In the present case, apart from the pendency of the investigation, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that either of the petitioners has evaded the investigation, failed to comply with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en required. The investigation is also stated to be pending for almost six years. 31. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the continued operation of the LOCs against the petitioners is unwarranted. The LOCs, therefore, cannot be permitted to operate indefinitely in the absence of circumstances which justify such coercive restraint. 32. Accordingly, the LOCs issued against the petitioners at the instance of Respondent No. 1 are quashed. However, considering the pendency of investigation against the petitioners, this Court considers it apposite to impose the following conditions upon the petitioners: 1) The petitioner in W.P.(C) 10167/2026, who is an Indian national and re....