Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Manavi Anusha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2512 of 2023 and CM APPL. 9609 of 2023, 12050 of 2023
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Ms. Shivani Kher, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lakra & Ms. Prachi Darji, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunit Misra & Mr. Hemant Chauhan, Advocates for Intervenor.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Advocate.
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Vivek Kumar & Mr. Naved Ahmed, Advocates, for the Respondent-2.
Mr. Ankit Verma (GP).
The court emphasized that the parameters for issuing an LOC must be met, and in this case, the court found that the LOC against the petitioner was not warranted.
Headnote:
LOC - Quashing of Look-Out Circular - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against her by the Bureau of Immigration and GNCTD/Delhi Police. The disputes arose from a Tripartite Agreement and Addendum in respect of COVID-19 diagnostic kits. The Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes. The petitioner's counsel argued that the LOC was a measure to harass her, while the respondent's counsel stated that serious allegations of cheating and forgery were raised against the petitioner and her brother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parameters for issuing an LOC were not satisfied as the arbitral proceedings were pending, and the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation. The Principal District & Sessions Judge had already set aside the LOC against the petitioner's brother. The court also noted the substantial sum secured for the respondent no.3 by the Sole Arbitrator.
Issues: The main issue was whether the LOC against the petitioner should be continued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the parameters for issuing an LOC were not met, and thus directed that the LOC against the petitioner be quashed. The court also maintained status quo in respect of the property owned by Genestore India Pvt. Ltd., subject to further orders of the Sole Arbitrator.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction to inform the Bureau of Immigration that there were no restrictions on the petitioner to travel. All pending applications were also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 2512/2023 and CM APPL. 12050/2023 (impleadment); CM APPL. 9609/2023 (stay)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner-Ms. Manavi Anusha has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the Look-Out Circular ("LOC") issued against her. The petition has been filed against the Respondent No. 1-Bureau of Immigration and the Respondent No.2-GNCTD. One Mr. Vineet Singh Chauhan has filed an application being CM APPL. 12050/2023 for impleadment in the matter. He is accordingly impleaded as Respondent No.3.
3. The Respondent No.3 had filed a complaint against the Petitioner under Section 420/406/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") which was registered as a First Information Report ("FIR"), bearing FIR No. 00034/2021 dated 12th February 2021, registered by PS Economic Offences Wing ("EOW"), New Delhi. In the said FIR, Genestore India Pvt. Ltd., Anubhav Anusha - the brother of the Petitioner, Ms. Manavi Anusha - the Petitioner and certain other persons were arrayed as accused. The FIR was registered on 12th February, 2021 and an LOC was issued by Respondent No. 1 - Bureau of Immigration at the instance of Respondent No. 2-GNCTD/Delhi Police on 25th March, 2021. It is this LOC which is under challenge in the present petition.
4. The disputes between the Petitioner, her brother and Respondent No.3 appear to have arisen out of a Tripartite Agreements dated 8th May, 2020 and 9th May, 2020 and a separate Addendum dated 11th July, 2020 in respect of COVID-19 diagnostic kits. The admitted position as of today, is that a Sole Arbitrator has been appointed by this Court on 25th January, 2021 in Arb P. No. 769/2020 titled Vineet Singh Chauhan & Anr. v. M/s Genestore India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director & Ors., to adjudicate the said disputes.
5. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner - Ms. Shivani Kher submits that the Respondent No.3 is already secured by the Sole Arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings vide order dated 20th February, 2023 and the issuance of LOC is nothing but a measure to harass the Petitioner.
6. On behalf of the Respondent No.3, it is submitted by Mr. Mathur, ld. Senior Counsel that the LOC was not sought for by the Respondent No.3. It has been issued at the instance of Respondent No. 2-GNCTD/EOW on its own accord. It is further submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 3, that though the disputes are pending in arbitration, there are serious allegations which have been raised against the Petitioner and her brother including that of cheating and forgery.
7. Ms. Kher, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the LOC qua the brother-Mr. Anubhav Anusha has already been set aside by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Rev. 297/2022 in the case titled `Mr. Anubhav Anusha v. GNCTD' vide order dated 5th September, 2022. The same is now subject matter of the appeal. She submits that since the dispute is commercial in nature, there is no basis for issuance of LOC.
8. On behalf of the Respondent No. 2-GNCTD/Delhi Police, certain documents have been placed on record to show the manner in which the LOC was issued. It is submitted that the Petitioner was investigated and the statement of the Petitioner was also recorded, and hence owing to the alleged offences in the FIR, it was deemed appropriate to issue the LOC. It is not in dispute between the parties of the present petition, that now the Petitioner has joined with the investigation.
9. The question that arises in this petition is whether the LOC ought to be continued. A perusal of the Office Memorandum issued by Respondent No. 1, dated 22nd February, 2021 under which LOCs are issued, shows that under paragraph 6(F) and 6(J) of the Office Memorandum, though the LOC remains in force unless a deletion request is given by the Originator itself, the LOC is required to be reviewed on a quarterly and annual basis by the Originating Agency. The said Office Memor
