0

GRANTS BUSINESSMAN TO TRAVEL ABROAD: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

In the present case Jayant Nanda v. Union Of India, Civil Writ Petition No. 4081 of 2021 and CM No. 10777 of 2022, THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI has allowed the application and granted permission to the petitioner to visit UAE and Thailand.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner has prayed to the Hon’ble court to allow his application to travel abroad from March – April 2022 or pass any other order that the court deems fit and proper and in the interest of justice and equity.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner intends to travel to UAE from New Delhi; from UAE to Thailand. The petitioner intends to travel to UAE as he is a Non-Resident since 1989 and his place of residence is Dubai from where he carries his business. He is traveling to Thailand to restart the construction of a hotel/resort in Koh Samui, Thailand. He stated that on earlier occasions also this Court has granted permission to the petitioner to travel to UAE and also to UK subject to conditions imposed which the petitioner has scrupulously followed and has always returned back to India.

The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department would contest the application, by stating that the request of the petitioner to travel to UAE and Thailand does not deserve any consideration, inasmuch as the petitioner is under investigation for the commission of offenses punishable under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (‘Black Money Act’ hereinafter). The investigations conducted so far indicate that huge unaccounted income was parked outside India and the same was brought back to Indian companies in the name of either the petitioner or entities owned by the petitioner. The investigation conducted also revealed that the petitioner made huge investments outside India in companies owned/controlled by Dr. Jyostna Suri (petitioner’s sister) and family.

The Hon’ble Court allowed the application moved by the petitioner directing him to furnish security by way of an unencumbered property of a value of Rs 10 crores or more and a liquid security for a sum of Rs 1 crore, either in the form of a bank guarantee or in the form of a fixed deposit or any other liquid form.

Click here to read the Judgment


Written by- Apeksha Khandelwal, Legal assistant

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat