SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1346

ANITA SUMANTH
Rahul Surana – Appellant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel for S.N. Kirubanandam, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R5, R. Sankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by B. Rabu Manohar, Senior Central Government Panel Counsel, R6, Brinda Ramesh, Advocates, R7 & R8, No appearance.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, there is no indication that a Look Out Circular was issued specifically against a lawyer. The document discusses a case involving an individual, Rahul Surana, and the issuance and validity of a Look Out Circular (LOC) related to an investigation into the Surana Group of Companies. The LOC was issued in connection with ongoing investigations into corporate and financial irregularities, not specifically targeting a lawyer.

The court's analysis emphasizes that LOCs should only be issued when justified by specific reasons, such as deliberate evasion of arrest or non-appearance in court, and highlights that there must be proper authorization and adherence to guidelines. The document indicates that the LOC in question was challenged and found to lack proper justification, leading to its quashing.

Therefore, there is no evidence within this document to suggest that a LOC was issued against a lawyer.


JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 8th respondent relating to the Lookout Circular No.1/SIC/ACK/LOC 2020-8862, New Delhi dated 09.12.2020 insofar as the petitioner and quash the same.)

The petitioner challenges Lookout Circular No.1/SIC/ACK/LOC 2020-8862, New Delhi dated 09.12.2020 issued by R8/Bureau of Immigration and seeks quash of the same.

2. The petitioner’s father, one Dinesh Chand Surana was the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited (SIL). The petitioner states that he has no connection whatsoever with the day-to-day affairs, management or administration of SIL nor is he a shareholder of the Company. He was caught unawares by virtue of a restriction placed on his travel when he went to the Chennai Airport with his wife and children on 30.01.2020 to travel abroad for medical treatment of his wife.

3. The reason given was that a LOC had been issued by R1 in connection with Crime No.11 of 2019 that has been registered against the Promoters and Directors of SIL for alleged offences under Sections 120B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top