Local court in India sets aside lookout notice against Huawei India CEO

A condition has been imposed, that in case of resignation, retirement or cessation of employment, Huawei cannot release the severance package and other benefits without the court's prior approval

The lookout circular in India against Huawei Telecommunications (India) chief executive Li Xiongwei has been set aside by a local court. It was issued by the Income Tax Department. However, the court has placed a condition on it, a report by the Economic Times (ET) stated. 

 

The condition states that in case of resignation, retirement or cessation of employment, Huawei cannot release the severance package and other benefits without the court's prior approval. After Li's undertaking, the LOC will be revoked within seven days. 

 

The order read that Huawei is "not a fly-by-night operator, and considering that it generates considerable revenue from India, it is prudent that a condition is imposed upon payment of salary, bonus, ESOPs and other benefits."

 

The court also noted that the proceeding would likely take a long time to conclude. It has already been six months since the issuance of the letter of request, and the investigation is nowhere close to completion.

 

It further said, as per a report by ET, "It is also doubtful whether the sureties would be in a position to compel him to come to India should he decide against coming back for facing prosecution in a complaint case or for appearing before the investigating officer."

 

Advocates Vijay Aggarwal and Nagesh Kumar Behl, appearing on behalf of Li, said that the LOC should not have been opened since it was a non-cognisable offence and bailable. 

 

The court order also said that Li's departure could not be termed as detrimental to India's security and integrity. 

 

"It is also not detrimental to bilateral relations with any other country or the strategic and/or economic interest of India. It is highly unlikely that the applicant (Li) will indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the Indian state," ET quoted the court order as saying.