Manoj 208-WP-5352-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5352 OF 2022 Salil Baldev Raj Taneja Indian resident aged about 55 years, having his residential address at 75 Koregaon Park, Lane No.3 Pune 411001 …..Petitioner Vs. 1. Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Mumbai, 6th Floor, Fountain Telecom Building 1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 2. Deputy Director, Bureau of Immigration, East Block VIII, RK Puram, New Delhi - 110066 3. Union of India 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020 4. Director of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division), 2nd Floor, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, New Delhi - 110001 …..Respondents __________________________________________ Mr. Ravi Kadam, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Kunal Kataria, Mr. Tushar Ajinkya, Mr. Saahil Bijliwala, Ms. Bhavi Shah & Mr. Rohan Phadke i/b. ThinkLaw Advocates, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. K. Halwasia, Addl. P.P. a/w Mr. Keshav Thakur, Mr. Ankur Deswal and Mr. Sumit Singh, Prosecutors SFIO for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. __________________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. RESERVED ON : 14th JANUARY, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 28th JANUARY, 2026. 1/5 WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.01.29 19:31:03 +0530 Manoj 208-WP-5352-2022.doc JUDGMENT:- (PER SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2) Present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing and setting aside of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed an Affidavit-in-Reply and opposed the Petition. 3) Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. Halwasia, the learned Addl.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the record. 4) It is the case of Petitioner that, the said LOC has been issued in relation to an on-going investigation initiated by Respondent No.1 in October 2020, under Section 212(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, connected to the affairs of M/s. ISMT Limited (ISMT). It is stated that the Petitioner was on the board of ISMT until 01.12.2014. Pertinently, pursuant to a successful debt resolution of its debt under the guidance of its lenders, ISMT had entered into an One Time Settlement Agreement with its lenders and fully and finally discharged ISMT’s debt owed towards them. 5) It is stated that on 18.04.2022 Petitioner’s father Mr. B.R. Taneja, founder promoter of ISMT, was stopped at the Chhatrapati Shivaji 2/5 Manoj 208-WP-5352-2022.doc Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai from traveling abroad. Therefore, correspondence was entertained with Respondent No.1 requesting that the on-going investigation be expedited and to have the LOC issued against the promoters of ISMT, cancelled. Last such request was made on 26.10.2022. These circumstances made the Petitioner apprehend that an LOC was issued against him and the reply letter dated 22.11.2022 given by Respondent No.1 made those apprehensions reality. However, said LOC is in gross violation of the Office Memorandum No.25016/10/2017-Imm (Pt.) dated 22.02.2021 issued by Respondent No.4. It is also contrary to settled position of laws and the fundamental rights of the Petitioner. 6) It is stated that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Pune. He has deep social and business ties in India. Whenever he was called upon to do so, the Petitioner has provided his full cooperation to Respondent No.1, in the investigation. Presently, Petitioner has been serving as the Managing Director of M/s. TAAL Tech India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. He is also on the board of several other companies which have international business commitments. However, the LOC has eroded in the way of the Petitioner to travel abroad. 7) Mr. Kadam, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the fact that the Petitioner was cooperative throughout the investigation of the alleged fraud, is not controverted by Respondent No.1. During pendency of the Petition, this Court allowed the Petitioner to travel 3/5 Manoj 208-WP-5352-2022.doc abroad on conditions. The Petitioner had never travelled in breach of the said conditions and has returned on time. This indicate that, the Petitioner is not likely to abscond. At no point of time the Petitioner was arrested for the sake of the investigation. Thus, it is apparent that the Petitioner is not likely to abscond. Therefore, and having regard to the other facts and circumstances of the case, the LOC is completely unwarranted. 8) Mr. Halwasia, the learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, on the other hand, opposed these submissions. He submitted that although there is no charge of Section 447 of the Companies Act, Section 448 has been alleged against the Petitioner which includes the charge of Section 447. To support this submission, he has cited the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Yerram Vijay Kumar Vs. The State of Telangana & Anr.1 However, Mr. Halwasia, on instructions, submitted that, considering the present circumstances of the case and the stage of investigation, the LOC is not necessary. As such, he submitted to pass the necessary Orders as this court may deemed fit. Lastly, he submitted that, if this Court deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the LOC, then it may be subject to the Petitioner taking permission of this Court to travel abroad in the future. 9) We have considered these submissions. 10) The submission by the learned senior counsel Mr. Kadam that, 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 44 4/5 Manoj 208-WP-5352-2022.doc the Petitioner has been connected with several companies namely Tel, TAAL Tech, Taneja Aerospace in some prominent position, is not controverted. Similarly, it is not disputed by Respondent No.1 that, the Petitioner has international business commitments and those can be fulfilled only by visiting abroad. However, the LOC has posed an obstacle in it. The Right to travel is an integral part of right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. But, the LOC has come in the way of this right of the Petitioner as well as his business opportunity. Looking at the conduct of the Petitioner in cooperating with the investigation, coupled with the fact that, he was never arrested in the crime, it clearly appears to us that, the investigating Agency does not require his physical presence till the trial began. Record also indicates that, in the recent past, the Petitioner has taken several trips to abroad and has returned. Thus it is clear that, the Petitioner has deep roots in the society and he is not likely to abscond. In the backdrop, presently, the existence of LOC is unnecessary. 11) In the wake of above, we are inclined to allow the Petition. Hence, we pass following Order:- a) The Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner by the Respondent No.1 dated 22.02.2021, is quashed and set aside. b) Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. 12) Rule is accordingly made absolute. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 5/5