Vishambhar Saran vs Bureau Of Immigration And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 6379 Cal

  58-60
16.12.2021
   TN
                             WPA No.10241 of 2020
                             IA No: CAN 1 of 2021
                             Vishambhar Saran
                                    Vs.
                       Bureau of Immigration and others
                                     With
                             WPA No.10247 of 2020
                              IA No: CAN 1 of 201
                                Saroj Agarwal
                                      Vs.
                          Bureau of Immigration and others

                                      With
                              WPA No.10249 of 2020
                               IA No: CAN 1 of 2021
                                 Vishal Agarwal
                                       Vs.
                           Bureau of Immigration and others

             Mr.   Rajarshi Dutta,
             Mr.   V.V.V. Sastry,
             Mr.   Tridib Bose,
             Mr.   Debjyoti Saha
                              .... for the petitioners in all the matters

             Mr. Avinash Kankani
                               .... for the respondent nos.1 and 2

in all the matters

Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury .... for the Bank

Mr. Rajendra Tiwari .... for the respondent nos.1 and 2 in WPA 10249 of 2020

Mr. Partha Ghosh, Mr. Avishek Kulkarni .... for the UOI in all the matters

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondent-Bank be kept on record, along with the

counter-affidavit thereto filed by the writ petitioners. It

is contended by learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioners that the petitioners, despite not refuting

the service of summons as disclosed in the

supplementary affidavit, only insofar as WPA

No. 10241 of 2020 is concerned, argues that such

summons ipso facto cannot establish a nexus between

the petitioners and the alleged action for which the

Look-Out Circular was issued.

It is further contended that, at the juncture

when the affidavit-in-reply was affirmed by the

petitioners, the issuance of summons was not within

the knowledge of the petitioners and, as such, could

not be disclosed.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while

fairly conceding to the probability that the petitioners

might not have had knowledge of the summons at the

relevant juncture, argues that the factum of service of

such summons remains. In view of such summons, a

cognizable offence, it is argued, is disclosed to be

pending against the petitioners.

That apart, by placing reliance on the

supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the

respondent-Bank further contends that a proceeding

for declaration of wilful defaulter is also going on

against the petitioners.

That apart, since the petitioners are non-whole

time Directors, it is argued that the petitioners cannot

escape the liability for the default committed by the

company.

Since written notes of arguments have already

been filed by the parties and further copies thereof

handed over to the court, the arguments in the

matters are closed.

The matters are kept reserved for judgment.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)