The Court considered the question of whether the Look Out Circular deserves to be stayed and suspended its operation based on the absence of a flight risk and specific conditions imposed on the Petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in the present petition has challenged the Look Out Circular (hereinafter, `LOC') issued against him by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e., the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (hereinafter, `MCA') and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter, `SFIO') and prays for the same to be quashed.

3. The brief background of the matter is that the Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant who was inducted in the Board of M/s Techpro Systems Limited, as a Non-Executive Independent Director, in the Annual General Meeting dated 26th September 2007. The Petitioner is working in Oman and relocated there on 24th October, 2009. He is stated to have resigned from the post of Independent Director of M/s Techpro Systems Limited on 13th January, 2015 due to his full time employment in Oman and health concerns. In 2017, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings were initiated against M/s Techpro Systems Limited, and on 5th May 2019, the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that he had travelled to India on 2nd February, 2021 and was scheduled to fly back to Oman on 21st February, 2021. However, he was stopped at the airport and was intimated about the LOC which has been issued against him at the behest of the SFIO. The Petitioner was thereafter issued summons bearing F. No. SFIO/INV/TSL/1304/2020 by the SFIO on 23rd February 2021, through WhatsApp, to personally appear before the Investigating Officer on 2nd March, 2021.

5. Detailed arguments were heard in this matter in the stay application by the Court on 12th April, 2021. Submissions were made both on behalf of the Petitioner and on behalf of the Respondents who had informed the Court that an SFIO investigation is going on against the Petitioner. The case of the Petitioner was that he was an independent Director and had no role in the running of the company. The SFIO's case to the contrary was that he was one of the longest serving Directors of the company and a member of the Audit Committee as well.

6. The Court after considering the submissions made, held as under:

"10. At this stage, the Court is merely considering the question as to whether the LOC deserves to be stayed i.e., whether the interim relief is to be granted. The pleadings are yet to be completed. The admitted facts, insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, are as under:

(i) The Petitioner is employed in Oman. His certificate of employment has been placed on record and he has been working there since 2009.

(ii) The Petitioner's wife and children reside in Delhi NCR.

(iii) The Petitioner has several immovable properties in Delhi/NCR, a list of which has been submitted to the SFIO.

(iv) The Petitioner has been asked by his employer in Oman to immediately join back duty.

XXX

18. There is no criminal case pending against the Petitioner. His role is also yet to be ascertained by the investigating authorities. Phrases such as `economic interest' or `larger public interest' cannot be expanded in a manner so as to include an Independent Director who was in the past associated with the company being investigated, without any specific role being attributed to him, as in the present case. The Petitioner poses no flight risk given the fact that his wife and children are residents of Delhi/NCR. This Court is inclined to suspend the operation of the LOC, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The Petitioner shall present himself in the Indian Embassy in Oman on the 1st and 3rd Monday of every month.

(ii) The Petitioner shall file an undertaking in this Court, which would be supported with an undertaking by his wife, that the Petitioner would be present before the authorities upon being issued 15 days' notice.

(iii) Insofar as the immovable properties are concerned, the immovable properties in the list emailed to the Court Master today i.e., at times 1 and 4, shall not be transferred/alienated by the Petitioner