The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police booked LSF 10
, a US-based subsidiary of Lone Star, and its officials based on a complaint by US-based Hamlin Trust that holds a 33% stake in RattanIndia Finance, a non-banking finance company jointly formed by Rajiv Rattan, former cofounder of Indiabulls Group, and LSF 10 Rose.
The FIR was registered in March on the directions of a Delhi court which in its order held that the “complaint discloses commission of cognisance offences, and it is directed that on the basis of the complaint an FIR be registered against the accused and same be investigated”. The police have recently issued summons to the accused, asking them to join the investigation, people in the know said.
LSF 10 Rose and one of its officials, Santosh Dubey, a co-accused in the case, petitioned the Delhi High Court, seeking setting aside the court order and quashing of the FIR.
The counsel for the US equity firm contended that the instant case is a civil dispute and is being converted into a criminal case. It was further argued that there are several matters pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the same dispute.
The counsel alleged that the intention of the complainant is to extract confidential documents under the garb of the FIR which stands registered so that the same may be used against the company. The counsel said the company is ready to cooperate in the probe but if it has objection to providing “certain confidential information”, it should be granted liberty to approach the High Court.
Taking stock, the High Court has issued notice to the Delhi Police asking it to file a status report in the case within three months. The court has held that the “investigating officer, as and when he needs certain documents from the company may serve notice under Section 91 Cr PC on the authorised representative of the company who will furnish the required documents”.
The order, passed last week, further reads, “In case the company has any objection to the documents, which as per the petitioner (company) are sensitive in nature, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach” the High Court “even during summer vacation for putting forward its stand”.