Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Delhi High Court Quashes Look Out Circular  Issued By Bank

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, August 17, 2023 — The Delhi High Court today rendered a decision in favor of Nipun Singhal, quashing the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him by the Bank of Baroda. Singhal had been accused of being a ‘wilful defaulter’ in a case related to financial irregularities of Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited, where he once served as a Director.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his judgment, observed that “almost all the transactions mentioned in the [Forensic Audit] Report are post May, 2017,” which implies that Singhal had already resigned his directorship by the time the alleged financial misdeeds occurred.

The Court took note that Singhal had already resigned from the company in May 2017, and the transactions that led to the company being declared as a Non-performing asset (NPA) happened much later, after his resignation.

The judgment highlighted the counter-affidavit filed by Bank of Baroda, which included details from a Forensic Audit Report for the period from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. Although the bank had argued that Singhal was a “Key Managerial Personnel,” the Court found that the transactions under scrutiny largely occurred after Singhal’s tenure at the company.

Singhal had initially approached the Court after being stopped at Mumbai Airport due to the LOC while he was planning to travel to Spain. The LOC prevented him from leaving the country, prompting him to challenge its issuance in court.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs had filed a reply indicating that Singhal allegedly diverted 11.78 crores to his private companies through bogus consultancy bills. However, the Court found that these allegations were not sufficient to hold Singhal culpable as the transactions mentioned were post his resignation from the company.

In a significant development, the Court also mentioned that Singhal had cooperated fully with the CBI investigation, further strengthening his case.

The decision of the Delhi High Court sends a strong message regarding the due diligence needed before issuing Look Out Circulars and declaring individuals as wilful defaulters, especially when substantial evidence does not support such allegations.

Date of Decision: 17 August, 2023

NIPUN SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Nipun_Vs_UOI_17AUG23_DEL.pdf"]

Latest Legal News