Read Time: 07 minutes
However, court took exception to needless adjournments, saying that the advocate should have been prepared to argue the case
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Rajiv Shekhdar and Amit Bansal, adjourned the hearing on Thursday on a woman's challenge against her international travel ban following a request from one of the advocates. The matter revolves around an application filed by Pawanjot Kaur, who stands accused of fraud involving a sum of Rs. 738 Crore.
Kaur, currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), has sought the court's permission to travel to the UK for medical treatment. The application forms part of two pending petitions related to the allegations against her.
The matter in question involves four Indian banks and two foreign banks, in addition to Kaur's four family-run companies- Net4 India Ltd. , Net4 Network Services, Pitetel Communications Pvt. Ltd. and Trak Online Net India Ltd. These were managed by Kaur and her son, as well as her husband before his demise.
In the latest hearing of this matter on Thursday, August 22, the division bench adjourned the matter as one of the advocates appearing in the case requested a “small accommodation” of two weeks and stated that she had recently filed the vakalat nama and placed it on record. While her adjournment was granted, she was reprimanded by the bench and questioned for failing to follow previous orders.
Notably, the Delhi High Court had in December 2022, denied the petition against the abroad travel ban filed by Kaur on the grounds of non-cooperation with the investigating authorities. The court had however observed that it was willing to reconsider the decision if she fully cooperated with the SFIO over the next two months.
“As per the facts of the matter as also from the statements made by the petitioner to the authorities, it is clear that there is non-cooperation by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, at this stage, the court is not inclined to let the petitioner travel abroad. However, over the next two months, if the petitioner fully cooperates with the SFIO, the court is willing to reconsider the issue”, Justice Pratibha M. Singh had said while pronouncing the judgment.
In its hearing of the matter on December 13, 2022, the court noted that in November of the same year, it had sought a status report from Pawanjot Kaur, as well as from the authorities, regarding compliance with the conditions levied in an earlier order. These included providing all details of Kaur's bank accounts that were maintained in India or any other jurisdictions and attending to the summons issued to her during the course of investigation. She had also been directed to hand over any relevant records or materials in her possession.
The court had then dismissed Kaur’s plea that providing her bank details which pertained to a period beyond two years, would require her to physically visit her bank as they could not be fetched online. The court had remarked, “ In today’s day and age, it is unbelievable for the court to accept that banks would not issue bank account statements unless the petitioner visits the bank personally. Most banking nowadays is conducted online and clearly there has been non-cooperation by the petitioner, as the bank account statements beyond two years are not being provided.”
In the latest hearing in this case on Thursday, the bench came down heavily on the advocate who sought an adjournment, reprimanding her for “causing problems to the bench".
Case Title: Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Bureau of Investigation
Please Login or Register
