Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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