2019 (10) TMI 1254 - HC - Indian Laws

Permission to travel abroad - substantial question raised by the appellant Bank is that despite the fact that there are recovery proceedings pending against the respondent No.1 to the tune of decretal dues of more than 98 crores and despite the fact that the lookout circular is in operation, the original petitioner is permitted to travel abroad - HELD THAT - No-doubt, it appears that the respondent No.1 is facing a decree of huge amount but then, the fact is not possible to be ignored that on previous occasion, learned Single Judge has permitted the respondent No.1 to travel abroad by virtue of the order dated 13.9.2019 and the respondent No.1 had returned back without violating any condition. It is further not in dispute that despite the aforesaid pending proceedings initiated by the appellant bank, on number of occasions, the respondent No.1 had traveled abroad and that fact is not in dispute and as such, the apprehension which has been voiced out has rightly been taken care by learned Single Judge by imposing appropriate conditions. When proper conditions have been imposed by learned Single Judge and for a brief period, respondent No.1 is permitted, we see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge. The said conclusion is arrived at after proper examination of the material and after considering the fact about the lookout circular as well. When that be so, we see no error in the order passed by learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to correctness of order permitting travel abroad despite pending recovery proceedings and lookout circular.

Analysis:
The appellant, Bank of Baroda, challenged the order allowing the respondent to travel abroad despite recovery proceedings and a lookout circular. The bank argued that the respondent's huge outstanding dues and false asset declaration pose a risk of non-repayment and violation of the lookout circular. The bank contended that the respondent's misleading information and lookout circular should have been considered by the Single Judge. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the respondent had complied with previous travel permissions and would not evade the proceedings. The respondent's history of traveling abroad without issues was highlighted, emphasizing that the conditions imposed by the Single Judge adequately protected both parties' interests.

The High Court noted the respondent's substantial outstanding dues but also considered the past compliance with travel permissions. The court acknowledged the respondent's previous travels without violations and the conditions imposed by the Single Judge to ensure the respondent's return. The court highlighted the conditions imposed, including a personal bond, deposit amount, affidavit undertaking, and submission of itinerary. The court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's discretion, especially considering the imposed conditions and the lookout circular. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, leading to the disposal of the Civil Application.