MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

SC Allows Foreign Investor To Withdraw Money From Bank After 17 Years, Sets Aside Bank Guarantee

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Subject: Criminal Law - Freezing of Assets - Foreign Investor - Imposition of Bank Guarantee

On 9 May 2023, the Supreme Court allowed a foreign institutional investor, M/s. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai, to withdraw an amount of Rs. 38.52 crores along with 4% simple interest, which shall be payable from 08.05.2006 till the date of actual payment. The Apex Court set aside the bank guarantee imposed by the lower courts against the appellant company's assets under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The appellant company was permitted by Securities and Exchange Board of India to buy and sell shares and securities in the Indian Stock Market. However, due to certain litigations, the appellant company had quit trading in the Indian markets in 2006. At this point, the appellant company had shares and money in its bank account with ICICI bank.

Subsequently, the appellant company was subject to two freeze orders under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second freeze order had incapacitated the appellant from repatriating an amount of Rs. 38.52 crores, which was realized in their favour pursuant to an order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal dated 08.05.2006.

The lower courts had imposed a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount sought to be withdrawn, which the appellant had challenged. The appellant company had approached the High Court, however, the High Court reiterated the imposition of the bank guarantee.

The Apex Court observed that the freeze orders and the bank guarantee were solely imposed on the grounds of criminal proceedings being alive against one Dharmesh Doshi, who is alleged to be connected to the appellant company. However, Dharmesh Doshi was in no way connected to the appellant company, and he was never an employee/share holder/director or a key managerial person in the appellant company. The said Dharmesh Doshi, on the basis of whom the condition of bank guarantee was imposed, has now been discharged of the alleged offences by the Trial Court.

It further held that even if Dharmesh Doshi's discharge is subsequently reversed, and he is convicted, such a conviction would still have no bearing on the properties of the appellant company herein, since the appellant company is not alleged to be a part of the crime.

Apex Court set aside the bank guarantee imposed by the lower courts and allowed the appellant company to withdraw the amount along with interest.

Date of Decision: 09th May, 2023

M/s. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai  vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.          

Latest Legal News