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 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

National Interest Paramount in Economic Crimes: High Court Denies Shivinder Mohan Singh’s Travel Plea”

31 December 2024 1:43 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court upholds Special Judge’s decision to deny suspension of LOC for ongoing SFIO investigation into significant economic offenses.

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Special Judge, Dwarka Courts, denying Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh’s request to suspend the Look Out Circular (LOC) and permit him to travel abroad. The judgment, delivered by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, underscores the court’s emphasis on the national interest over individual liberties in cases involving serious economic offenses.


The case revolves around Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh, a former director of Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL) and Religare Enterprises Limited (REL), who sought permission to travel to the United Kingdom to attend the graduation ceremonies of his two sons. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has been investigating Singh for alleged misappropriation and siphoning off of funds amounting to significant losses for FHL and REL. Despite his previous full cooperation, Singh’s request was denied by the Special Judge due to ongoing investigations and the perceived flight risk.


The court noted discrepancies in Singh’s disclosure of assets. Despite his claims of not owning any properties or having sources of income, evidence from his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) indicated otherwise. The court highlighted the importance of full and truthful disclosure, especially in cases involving substantial financial interests and potential economic offenses.


Justice Sharma emphasized the significant overseas interests and family connections of the petitioner. With substantial financial stakes abroad and family members residing outside India, the court found a credible risk that Singh might not return to face ongoing investigations. “The interest of the nation, whether economic or strategic, is paramount,” stated Justice Sharma.


The judgment distinguished this case from others where travel permissions were granted. The court stressed that each case must be assessed on its individual facts, noting that in Singh’s case, the investigation was ongoing, and the full extent of his involvement in the alleged offenses was yet to be determined.


The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence in cases involving significant economic offenses. The court reiterated that national interest must take precedence over individual liberties in such serious investigations. “The investigation conducted so far by the IO indicates that the applicant is a serious flight risk,” the court stated. Justice Sharma also underscored the incomplete and misleading nature of Singh’s asset disclosures, which undermined his trustworthiness.


Justice Dharmesh Sharma remarked, “The interest of the nation, whether economic or strategic, is paramount. In the present case, economic/national interest of the country is involved. Therefore, this case falls under the exception.”


The High Court’s dismissal of Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh’s petition reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the national interest in cases of serious economic offenses. By affirming the lower court’s decision, the judgment sends a strong message about the importance of asset disclosure and the risks associated with international travel permissions in ongoing investigations. This landmark decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases, ensuring a robust legal framework for addressing economic crimes.


Date of Decision: June 26, 2024
 

Latest Legal News