Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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