Cannot Be Deprived Of Right To Travel Abroad: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Suspension Of Look Out Circular Against Erstwhile Director Of Wave Megacity
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the suspension of a Look Out Circular against an erstwhile Director of Wave Megacity while upholding his right to travel abroad.
The Court upheld the Single Bench’s Order permitting the Respondent, an erstwhile director and shareholder of the M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), to travel abroad under certain conditions. The Corporate Debtor had raised Rs. 1,400 crore from 2,300 homebuyers but failed to hand over possession of the booked units.
A Division Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, “Moreso, the appellant has further failed to disclose the time frame within which the pending investigations shall be concluded. Needless to say, that in such circumstances, the respondent cannot be deprived of his right to travel abroad.”
CGSC Amit Tiwari represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for the Respondent.
The Corporate Debtor filed a Company Petition under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). While the Petition was pending, an FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against the Corporate Debtor and its directors under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the IPC.
The NCLT dismissed the Company Petition imposing Rs. 1 crore penalty and directing the Central Government to investigate the affairs of the Corporate Debtor. Subsequent to this, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) issued an LOC against the Respondent.
The Single Judge allowed the Respondent’s application seeking permission to travel abroad. The Appellant filed the present Appeal, contending that the Respondent was a ‘flight risk’ and had not cooperated fully with the investigation. It was argued that the Respondent had failed to disclose offshore assets and other financial details.
The Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the LOC had been issued in violation of natural justice principles and that he had fully cooperated with the investigating agencies whenever summoned.
The High Court noted the Respondent’s submission that imposition of LOC was not warranted in this case and that his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to travel abroad, cannot be infringed.
“It is undisputed that the investigation in the present case has been pending since 06.06.2022 and with respect to the FIR registered by EOW on 13.04.2021, no Charge Sheet has been filed till date. Further, the petitioner has been involved in the investigation whenever he has been summoned by the Investigating Agencies and has disclosed the required information,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has imposed various conditions upon the respondent while granting him the permission to travel aboard. The LPA, in view, thereof is dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Union Of India v. Manpreet Singh Chadha (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:10101-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: CGSC Amit Tiwari; AdvocatesAyush Tanwar and Aakash Pathak
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi; Advocates Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandrajog, Arjun Nanda, Dhruv Wadhwa and Shreya Singh,
