SALIL BALDEV RAJ TANEJAversusASSISTANT DIRECTOR SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE AND ORS

WAKLE
MANOJ
JANARDHAN             Manoj                                                 208-WP-5352-2022.doc
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.01.29
19:31:03 +0530                     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
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