9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the petitioner s case falls within the ambit of fraud or default which would affect economic interest of the Country. In the instant case, value of the secured property is more than the amount due from the petitioner to the 3rd respondent-Bank. In that circumstance, 3rd respondent-Bank is not justified in requesting for issuance of LOC. The petitioner is not leaving the Country to avoid repayment of loan of the Bank, but the petitioner is employed in Philippines and she had come to India to tender her evidence in a pending matrimonial case. The decision relied upon by the learned Assistant Solicitor General on Dr. Bavaguthuraghuram Shetty [ 2021 (5) TMI 1037 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] case would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the petitioner was due to the Bank in a sum of Rs.2800.00 Crores and the same would definitely affect the economic interest of the Country. The action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Any action of the State if it is arbitrary and unreasonable is liable to be interfered. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pending divorce proceedings, the petitioner came down to India on 01.06.2022; on 02.06.2022, the petitioner tendered her evidence in the Matrimonial proceedings and on 05.06.2022, she was to travel back to Philippines where she is working. It is submitted that the petitioner had come to India leaving her two minor children aged about 10 and 8 years at Philippines. The petitioner was to leave India on 05.06.2022, but she was prevented from leaving the Country by the first respondent, putting cancellation seal on her passport and she was prevented from traveling to abroad at the request of the 3rd respondent-Bank. The first respondent issued Look out Circular (for short LOC ) against the petitioner. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Shashikiran Shetty would submit that action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner from traveling outside the Country is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent could not have requested for issuance of LOC as the issuance of LOC is not a recovery proceedings. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has initiated recovery proceedings and has brought the property offered as securi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing back, against such persons, request could be made to issue LOC and such persons could be restricted from traveling outside the Country. Thus, it is submitted that the whenever the Bank requests on the ground that it would not be in a possession to recover the money, if a person is permitted to travel outside, respondent Nos.1 and 2 would take action to issue LOC. Learned Assistant Solicitor General placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.315/2021 disposed of on 12.05.2021 (Dr.Bavaguthuraghuram Shetty V/S Bureau of Immigration and Others) contends that there need not be any criminal case registered to issue LOC, but it could be issued at Bank s request, if the Bank is of the opinion that if the borrower is permitted to leave the Country it would not be in a position to recover the dues, by which it would have adverse impact on the economic interest of the Country. 8. Learned counsel for 3rd respondent-Bank Sri.Parashuram would submit that the petitioner along with her husband obtained loan from the 3rd respondent-Bank and when they failed to repay the dues, the 3rd respondent-Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who is working at Philippines to eke out her livelihood, had come to India to tender her evidence in the matrimonial case pending between the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner tendered her evidence before the Family Court on 02.06.2022, when the petitioner was to leave on 05.06.2022 from India to Philippines, the petitioner was prevented from leaving the Country and cancellation seal was put on her passport and at the request of the 3rd respondent-Bank, LOC was issued against the petitioner. 12. LOC could be issued in terms of O.M. dated 22.02.2021. No one has absolute right to travel abroad or in other words, a person s right could be curtailed by following the procedure prescribed thereunder. A person could be prevented from traveling abroad or LOC could be issued only in terms of O.M.dated 22.02.2021. The above stated O.M. permits issuance of LOC against a person under various circumstances. In the instant case, no criminal case is registered against the petitioner nor any cognizable offence is alleged. Clause 6(L) of the O.M. dated 22.02.2021 reads as follows: In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases as may not be covered by the guidelines above, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2022 safeguard the interest of the Bank and provides mode of recovery of possession. The 3rd respondent-Bank instead of following the recovery procedure prescribed under SARFAESI Act is resorting to pressure tactics by preventing the petitioner from traveling abroad where she is working. 13. It is true that the respondent-Bank is conferred with the power to request respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue LOC against a person who has committed fraud or default against the Bank. It is for the Bank to take a decision as to, in which case the Bank could request LOC. Just because power is conferred to request issuance of LOC, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Bank has to take a conscious decision by examining as to whether the petitioner s case falls within the ambit of fraud or default which would affect economic interest of the Country. In the instant case, value of the secured property is more than the amount due from the petitioner to the 3rd respondent-Bank. In that circumstance, 3rd respondent-Bank is not justified in requesting for issuance of LOC. At the same time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also not justified in issuing LOC for mere asking by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
