Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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