9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri B. Jithender, Standing Counsel for Central Govt. ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 7th and 8th respondents, instructing the Court to impose travel ban on the petitioner and consequential action of the 4th respondent in imposing a travel ban on the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel Sri B.Jitender, representing respondent Nos.1 to 6 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Director cum Chairman of GVR Infra Projects Ltd. GVR Infra Projects availed a loan from erstwhile Vijaya Bank which was now merged with the 7th respondent bank and the 8th respondent was the branch which has advanced the loan. Proceedings were initiated against the company under the provisions of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A resolution plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai vide order dated 20.07.2020. Under the said resolution plan, resolution applicant UV Asset Reconstructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the resolution plan and the resolution plan had taken over M/s.GVR Infra Projects Ltd. The petitioner was not connected with the company any more. It was alleged by some banks who were part of consortium that the petitioner continue as a personal guarantor and filed applications before Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chennai, which were pending. No orders were passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chennai. Merely because the petitioner stood as personal guarantor to the company, which loans in fact were covered under the resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, a travel ban could not be imposed on the petitioner without any material to show that he would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. All the collateral securities offered by the erstwhile Directors had been covered under the resolution plan handed over to the resolution applicant. Hence, imposing travel ban on the petitioner was illegal and would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned Counsel Sri B.Jitender, representing respondent Nos.1 to 6 submitted that at the instance of Respondent Nos.7 and 8, a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued against the petitioner due to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government of India to protect public money. The action by the bank to safeguard its economic interest does not amount to violation of petitioner s fundamental rights and prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. Perused the record and the office memorandum issued by the Government of India. 9. It was not in dispute that GVR Infra Projects Limited had taken loan of Rs.250.03 Crores from the erstwhile Vijaya Bank which was now merged with Bank of Baroda, Respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein. It was also not disputed by the petitioner that the said loan was secured by him by way of personal guarantee dated 18.05.2017 along with other promoters of the company and that the company defaulted in making payments to the bank and the account was classified as NPA and the erstwhile Vijaya Bank had initiated recovery action against the company and its guarantors by initiating proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I Chennai. It was also not in dispute that one of the creditors of the company filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLT, Chennai and insolvency resolution process was initiated and a resolution plan was submitted and as per the resolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely called for questioning only once by CBI in connection with case of Kingfisher Airlines, travel restrictions could not have been imposed upon him Petitioner entitled to travel abroad for his personal and professional obligations with certain conditions. In the said case, it was also observed that : it was not the case of Authorities that any amounts are to be recovered from petitioner for which Chairman of SBI or any other public sector bank has made request for issuance of LOC... 13. But, in the present case a public sector bank had made request for issuance of LOC as huge amount of Rs.226.02 Crores was due and the petitioner had given a personal guarantee to the said outstanding amount. 14. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi (Division Bench) in ICICI Bank Limited v. Kapil Puri and others reported in 2017 LawSuit (Del) 899. In the said case, the deed of guarantee, the term of contract stipulated that without the permission of ICICI, the respondents 1 and 2 should not leave India for employment or business or for long stay at abroad and the DRT without taking into consideration, the said terms, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
