2022 (8) TMI 1421 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner - HELD THAT - Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires from the records that a similar LOC against the husband of the petitioner was quashed in a writ petition by this Court. Despite the children of the petitioner having indefinite leave to remain in the UK, the issuance of LOC cannot be used as a handle to obtain / enforce a prospective award against a person on anticipation, before it is actually passed by any competent judicial forum. In the present case, although the petitioner has been declared as a willful defaulter and there may be certain contentions which can be validly raised by the bank against the petitioner, such issue is entirely the subject matter of any award, if passed by a competent judicial forum. As of today, since no order has been passed against the petitioner from any such competent forum in respect of repayment of any quantum of money and keeping in view of the antecedents and attending circumstances of the petitioner, there is no scope of sustaining the LOC against the petitioner, which would not only have the effect of truncating the professional career of the petitioner but also be an unnecessary harassment and fetter on her personal liberty without there being any money award of a competent judicial forum against the petitioner. The LOC issued against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her, contending that her husband had a similar LOC quashed in a previous writ petition. She expressed her desire to join her husband in the UK, emphasizing her qualifications and ability to earn a living there. The petitioner had a history of traveling abroad multiple times, including to the UK, and highlighted her educational background and professional experience. She also mentioned her role as a mother and homemaker, with her minor daughters and parents dependent on her in Kolkata. The respondent-bank justified the LOC issuance based on concerns that the petitioner might evade legal proceedings and awards by relocating to the UK, given her family's presence there. However, the court noted that despite being declared a willful defaulter, no award had been passed against the petitioner by any competent forum. The court emphasized that the LOC should not be used to preemptively enforce a prospective award and that the petitioner's circumstances did not warrant sustaining the LOC, as it could impede her professional career and personal liberty without a valid legal basis.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the LOC issued against her. However, it imposed conditions for her international travel, requiring her to inform the respondent bank in advance about her travel dates and place of residence abroad. The order clarified that the bank could still pursue legal remedies through a competent judicial forum to obtain any award against the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and certified copies of the order were made available to the parties upon request.