The Delhi High Court Thursday dismissed a plea of the chairman of City Limouzines, who allegedly duped thousands of investors to the tune of Rs.500 crore, seeking to quash proceedings against him at a special court in Mumbai.
A division bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Manmohan declined to entertain Sayed Mohammed Masood's plea, saying that the alleged crime was committed in Mumbai, and the "cause of action" lies outside its territorial jurisdiction.
The bench said that not only were the companies which duped over 25,000 people incorporated in Mumbai, but also the investigation, the FIR and the subsequent complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was filed in a Mumbai special court.
"It is pertinent to mention that in the entire petition there is not even a whisper as to what cause of action in favour of the petitioner (Masood) had accrued within the jurisdiction of this court and why this court should exercise jurisdiction," the bench said.
The court directed Masood to approach the Bombay High Court with his plea instead.
Masood, who is also chairman of at least ten other City Group companies, had in 2002 launched an investment scheme by the name of 'Go-Vehicle on rental basis and earning by sitting at home' in which investments were invited from general public assuring high returns.
When the company shut operations in 2009, more than 42,000 cheques issued by it to investors stood dishonoured.
The enforcement directorate, probing the case, had in its complaints before the special court in Mumbai alleged that the companies floated by Masood had not only collected monies from investors by luring them with high returns but had also illegally transferred monies abroad.
Moving the Delhi High Court for quashing of proceedings in Mumbai, Masood contended that this court has jurisdiction to decide the matter as substantial cause of action had arisen in Delhi and the summons issued to him Dec 14 last year to appear in person was in the office of Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi Zonal Office.
He further argued that even the arrest order had been issued from the same Delhi office pursuant to which the petitioner was actually arrested in Delhi.
The enforcement directorate had arrested Masood on Dec 16 last year.
