2019 (9) TMI 1327 - HC - Indian Laws

Permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT - In the petitioner s present petition and the request that we are considering we cannot call upon him to provide details of his assets and liabilities so also the movable and immovable properties belonging to him. The bank is at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in the pending Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur. It is only because the travel has to commence from tomorrow and that the applicant has moved this application at the last minute that we grant him leave to travel abroad. That is to fulfill his commitments and the statements made in the affidavit on oath are accepted as undertakings to this Court. It is stated that the petitioner-applicant will fly out of India on 22 nd September 2019 and return by 21st October 2019 - Though the applicant has set out at Exhibit-A the itinerary and addresses in Singapore and in Dubai and has also provided the contact numbers that the petitioner-applicant shall strictly abide by this schedule and return to India by 21 st October 2019. The conditions imposed by this Court in its earlier order on 21st August 2019 would continue to bind the petitioner-applicant. The applications of the petitioner-applicant before this Court seeking leave to travel abroad having been granted does not mean that the Tribunal at Jabalpur is bound by the order and directions - notice of motion disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Prayer for a blanket stay of the Lookout Circular
2. Permission to travel abroad for business purposes
3. Concerns regarding the petitioner's return and bank's dues
4. Legality and validity of the Lookout Circular in civil proceedings
5. Granting leave to travel abroad due to imminent travel plans

Issue 1: Prayer for a blanket stay of the Lookout Circular
The petitioner sought a blanket stay of the Lookout Circular, challenging its operation and implementation. The court declined to grant this prayer at the current stage of proceedings, indicating that such a broad request could not be entertained immediately.

Issue 2: Permission to travel abroad for business purposes
The petitioner requested permission to travel abroad for business reasons within specific dates. The respondent, State Bank of India, opposed this request, expressing concerns that granting such permission without full details of the petitioner's assets could jeopardize the bank's recovery efforts. The court acknowledged the bank's apprehensions and emphasized the importance of ensuring the petitioner's return to India.

Issue 3: Concerns regarding the petitioner's return and bank's dues
The court noted the bank's valid concerns that granting travel permission without adequate details could impact the recovery of a substantial sum from the petitioner. Emphasizing the need for assurance of the petitioner's return, the court highlighted the potential risks involved in allowing travel without complete information on assets that could be used for recovery.

Issue 4: Legality and validity of the Lookout Circular in civil proceedings
The judgment touched upon the legality and validity of Lookout Circulars in civil proceedings, suggesting that such notices might be challenged on grounds of legality and necessity in civil matters. The court highlighted the ongoing proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and encouraged the petitioner to address concerns within the appropriate legal framework in Madhya Pradesh.

Issue 5: Granting leave to travel abroad due to imminent travel plans
Despite the concerns raised, the court granted the petitioner leave to travel abroad due to the imminent nature of the journey. The petitioner provided details of the itinerary and commitments abroad, with an undertaking to return by a specified date. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the conditions set in previous orders and clarified that the Tribunal in Jabalpur was not bound by the travel permission granted by the High Court.

In conclusion, the court granted the petitioner leave to travel abroad for business purposes within specific dates, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to adhere to the conditions set by the court and ensure a timely return. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the petitioner's travel needs with the bank's legitimate concerns regarding recovery efforts, urging the petitioner to address legal matters through the appropriate channels in Madhya Pradesh.