Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th May, 2021
SUNNY MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Appurva Upmanyu and Mr. Ashish Rohlania and Mr. Fahad Imtiaz, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant and Mr. Nitnem Singh Ghuman, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Mridul Jain, Spl. PP, CBI.
(M:9810302811)
Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Advocate for PNB/R-3.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. W.P.(C) 2799/2021 & CM APPL. 8439/2021 (for stay)
2. The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the Look Out Circular, which has been issued against him. The said LOC is valid till 6th March, 2022.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that a company which was being run by the Petitioner’s father, and his uncles etc., had availed of a loan facility from the Punjab National Bank and UCO Bank. He had stood as a guarantor for one of the said loans. The Petitioner was earlier conducting business in India under the name “Yash Rice Traders”. However, there was a severe financial crunch in the said company, and hence, he had to wind up his business here, 2021:DHC:1540 and he moved to Canada thereafter, in 2018. The father of the Petitioner suffered from an illness, and unfortunately passed away on 1st December, 2020 in Kaithal in Haryana. The Petitioner who is working in Canada and living with his wife and child in Canada, had to travel to India for the last rites of his father. While travelling back to Canada, on 26th January, 2021, he was detained in the immigration in Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, and thereafter was informed that an LOC has been issued against him.
4. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, that the Petitioner does not own any moveable or immovable assets in India. The factory land where the father’s company i.e., M/s Vishnu Oversees Limited, was located has already been taken over by the Bank. The residential property in Kaithal has already been taken over. It is submitted that the Petitioner himself does not own any properties in India. Moreover, the Bank has already filed civil proceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Chandigarh.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while there can be civil liability against the Petitioner who meant to be a guarantor, there is no allegations in the FIR against the Petitioner and hence his detention and the issuance of an LOC against him would not be tenable. Ld. counsel further submits that the Petitioner has joined the investigation, once when he was summoned on 10th January, 2021 by the CBI, and no further notices have been given.
6. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the Petitioner’s employment is under severe jeopardy if he is not able to travel back to Canada, and hence he prays to be permitted to travel back, with the undertaking that if he is summoned for investigation at any point, he would join the said investigation.
7. Vide the last order dated 5th May 2021, the Respondent No. 3- Punjab National Bank was directed to place on record, the actual amounts recovered upon auctioning of the factory land and the residential property of the Petitioner/his family. A further direction was given to the Petitioner to place on record an affidavit of the bua who is willing to stand as a surety for him, along with a list of the moveable and immovable assets which the bua owns.
8. Today, the Petitioner has filed before this Court the affidavit of his wife’s bua- Ms. Kanta Devi. The deponent of the affidavit, has deposed that she is the bua of the wife of the Petitioner- Ms. Ginni Mehta. In her affidavit, she states as under:-
9. Along with the said affidavit, she has also placed on record the DDA’s allotment letter for the property, which she is offering as a surety, being Flat No. 996, First Floor, Category LIG, Pocket-C at Lok Nayak Puram (Bakkarwala) Housing Scheme
10. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon an auction notice, according to which the last date for submitting the bid was 11th November, 2019, to submit that all seven properties of the Petitioner and their family were put to auction by the bank.
11. The Bank has also placed on record the statement of accounts. As per the ld. counsel for the Bank, the property dues against the various family members, and the firm “M/s Vishnu Oversees Limited” is to the tune of Rs. 157.84 crore. The chart placed on record, in the said affidavit of the bank also shows that seven properties have already been taken over by the bank.
12. The status as on today, qua the said properties taken over by the bank, is that none of the said properties have been sold.
13. Further, ld. counsel appearing for the CBI Mr. Mridul Jain, positively submits that the Petitioner had cooperated in the investigation, had joined on 10th February 2021, and there is no allegation of non-co-operation against the Petitioner, by the CBI. In fact, he submits that post the said date, no notice/ summons has been given to the Petitioner by the CBI.
14. Considering the fact that the Petitioner is a guarantor, and civil proceedings have already been filed against him before the DRT, as also the fact that the Bank has also taken over all the seven properties belonging to M/s Vishnu Oversees Limited as also the Petitioner’s residential properties, this Court is inclined to permit the Petitioner to travel to Canada.
15. The further facts which persuade this Court to permit the Petitioner travelling to Canada, are as under: (a) The wife and the child of the Petitioner are living in Canada and the child of the Petitioner is unwell. (b) The Petitioner also has a job in Canada, where he is working, and his employment may be in jeopardy if he is not permitted to travel. He had travelled to India only due to the demise of his father. No notice was issued to him for appearance prior to the one issued in January 2021, pursuant to which he has appeared.
(c) The assets of the borrower have already been taken over by the
(d) Civil proceedings are pending before the DRT against the
Petitioner. (e) In the FIR bearing no. RC2192020E0001, which has been registered pursuant to which the Petitioner was summoned by the CBI for investigation, the Petitioner is not named as an accused, and is stated to have cooperated in the investigation.
16. Accordingly, in view of the settled legal position Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director & Ors. [WP(Crl.) No. 1315/2005, decided on 11th August 2010], as also in Nitin Sandesara v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. [WP(C) 7559/2017, Order dated 29th August 2018], the Petitioner is permitted to travel abroad subject to the following conditions:i) The Petitioner shall furnish his residential address, and his employer’s contact details in Canada, along with the contact numbers and e-mail addresses of himself and his wife, as also other family members in Haryana, including his mother. ii) Insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, he agrees to cooperate in the investigation, and whenever he is summoned with at least six weeks’ notice, he undertakes to join the investigation, if required, by the CBI. iii) The surety given by the Petitioner’s wife’s bua - Smt. Kanta Devi is accepted by the Court and shall be binding. iv) Status quo shall be maintained, and no third party interest shall be created, in respect of the property bearing no Flat No. 996, First Floor, Category LIG, Pocket-C at Lok Nayak Puram (Bakkarwala) Housing Scheme, Delhi.
17. On compliance of the above conditions, the LOC issued against the Petitioner, shall remain suspended. The Authorities, as also the Petitioner, are permitted to move this Court, if any modification of this order is required.
18. The affidavit of Smt. Kanta Devi, that has been filed today, as also the statement of accounts and other documents that have been filed today by the Bank, shall be brought on record by the ld. Counsels.
19. CM Appl. 8439/2021 is disposed of in the above terms. The immigration authorities shall treat a copy of this order, as permission to the Petitioner to travel abroad.
20. List the writ petition on 23rd September, 2021.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MAY 7, 2021/MR/AK