The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed former promoter of Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL) Shivinder Mohan Singh’s plea seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom to attend the graduation ceremony of his two sons.
A single judge bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma said in its order, “There are sufficient grounds to raise an inference that in case such liberty is granted to the petitioner (Singh), he may abuse the same and may not come back to India so as to scuttle the entire investigation and the ensuing process”.
The case pertains to the Serious Fraud Investigation Agency’s (SFIO) probe into the financial affairs of REL, Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL) and sister concerns involving allegations of fraud and siphoning of funds.
“This Court finds no illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the learned Special Judge in passing the impugned order dated 05.06.2024,” the bench added. Singh had approached the HC after a trial court on June 5 rejected his plea seeking the suspension of the Look Out Circular issued against him.
The trial court had also denied him permission to travel to the UK between June 14 to July 4 and again from August 20 to September 10. Singh said that he wanted to attend the graduation ceremonies of his two sons studying in two different universities in the UK.
The HC observed that the “magnitude of the investigation being conducted by the SFIO in public interest to safeguard the economic and national interest of the country” stands at a much higher pedestal.
The court said that attending the graduation ceremony of his son is a “once in a lifetime experience” and a “momentous occasion” in one’s life, adding that the “sentiments of fatherly love for the son cannot be brushed aside”. However, the HC said that it has to be given way to “further the paramount national interest and fundamentally safeguard” the interests of stakeholders who were deprived of their hard-earned investments in REL and other companies.
“It appears that the petitioner has sizeable assets and properties, directly or indirectly, outside India in foreign jurisdictions…there is a strong inference that if liberty to go abroad is granted to him, he may not come back to India to face the investigation and trial, as and when it commences,” the HC said.
The high court also rejected the petitioner’s plea that he is willing to provide sufficient security by nominating any member of the family to remain in India coupled with the fact that his mother and mother-in-law are already residing in India.
“To my mind, any such disposition would be utterly sham and illusionary since, in the event the petitioner misuses the liberty to go abroad, what would the SFIO or the State do with such human security except to raise a plea to forfeit their undertakings/bonds, which would be insufficient,” Justice Sharma said.
The HC in its order observed, “It is borne out from the record that SFIO is investigating into the affairs of the FHL and REL and other associated/sister concerns in exercise of its plenary powers under…the Companies Act, 2013 in larger ‘public interest’, as the matter involves allegations of fraud, misappropriation and siphoning off of funds through use of multiple conduit companies, ever-greening of loans from the financial institutions and alleged losses caused to the companies and the public.”
The HC noted that Singh was a promoter of REL, having 16.31 per cent shareholding through RHC Holding Private Limited (RHC), where he was a non-executive director between December 13, 2004 to April 6, 2010.
The court also noted that Singh was the Managing Director of FHL from November 13, 2003 to January 1, 2016. He then held the post of Director w.e.f. January 1, 2016 to February 8, 2018, “thereby, controlling and managing the key operations” of the REL and FHL throughout this period.
“Evidently, the alleged cases of misappropriation and siphoning off of funds occurred during his tenure in such capacities which resulted in losses assessed approximately to be Rs. 3780/- & Rs. 450 crores to REL and FHL respectively,” the court said.
On the argument that Singh had “bonafidely stepped down” from the Board of the companies in question and now has no control in the interest or stakes in it, the HC said that the same is a “matter of trial”.
The HC said that Singh’s plea which says he neither has any immovable properties in his name nor any source of income is “not palatable”.
It said this after noting that Singh’s Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for assessment years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, “prima facie” shows that he has “assets/shareholding in the form of equity & preference shares” in Forthill International Limited, RHC Holding Private Limited situated in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Singapore.
On the argument that Singh had travelled to Singapore and UK from April, 2018 to February, 2019, the HC said that these visits had taken place when the SFIO’s investigation had “barely commenced”.
