Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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