Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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