The court emphasized the importance of considering the economic interest and public funds at stake in cases involving LOCs, and the duty of individuals in positions of responsibility within companies to cooperate with investigations.

ORDER

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Vide a separate judgment passed today, this petition along with all pending applications, has been disposed of.

3. The documents handed over in the sealed cover, i.e., the statement of the Petitioner taken by the SFIO, which were handed over by ld. counsel for the SFIO during the course of hearing, are returned to ld. Counsel for SFIO.

JUDGMENT

4. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

5. The Petitioner -- Ghanshyam Pandey in the present case challenges the issuance of the LOC against him on the various grounds and prays for quashing of the same.

6. The case of the Petitioner is that he and his wife were intending to travel to the U.S.A., however they were stopped at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 24th November, 2021 and were informed of the LOC which had been issued at the request of the Respondent No.2 -- Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). Until then, the Petitioner had no knowledge of the said LOC. The Petitioner's further case is that by the date when he was stopped at the airport, he had only received one summon from the SFIO in respect of an investigation of a company by the name M/s Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd (hereinafter, "Shilpi Cables"). He had accordingly appeared before the SFIO, cooperated and given answers to all the questions which were raised. The Petitioner submits that the issuance of the LOC in this manner curtails his freedom to travel and accordingly prays for quashing of the same.

7. Mr. Subramaniam, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was merely a whole time director of Shilpi Cable between the period 2013-17 and is not related to the family and promoters of the company in any manner. The various allegations against Shilpi Cable and its group companies of siphoning of funds, etc. cannot be saddled as being the Petitioner's responsibility as he was only a professional earning a salary from the said company. He submits that the highest case that can be argued against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner having been a member of the audit committee of Shilpi Cable did not alert authorities to the company's transactions. It is further submitted that since the time of the first summon, the Petitioner had appeared on 11 occasions and had his statement recorded by the SFIO. It is submitted that whatever information was within the knowledge of the Petitioner, he has given the same to the SFIO.

8. Mr. Subramaniam, ld. Counsel places reliance on judgments of Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. Union of India & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587 and Sumer Singh Salkha v. Asst. Director & Ors., ILR (2010) VI Delhi 706. Insofar as the cooperation with the investigating authorities is concerned, he relies upon the recent decisions of this Court in Lakshmi Satyanarayana Dutt Tadikond v. Union of India & Anr., 2020 (DLT SOFT) 389; Rana Ayyub v Union of India, 2022 SCC Online Del 961 and Bharadwaj Venkataraghavan Thiruvenkata v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors., W.P.(Crml.) 413/2022.

9. Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not a beneficiary of any of the amounts the allegations of which have been raised against Shilpi Cable and its promoters. The Petitioner has only one immovable property which is in Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and no other assets. He submits that the LOC has seriously impinged on his travel to meet his children and his family, two of whom live in the USA and one in Singapore. It is prayed that the LOC may be quashed as there is no flight risk as the Petitioner does not have any residency or citizenship permissions to live in the U.S.A and he intends to come back to India and continue to cooperate in the SFIO investigation. The final submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the paragraph (L) of the office memorandum (OM) dated 22nd February, 2021 is not attracted in the present case.

10. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Ahluwalia, ld. CGSC under instru