Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 92
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.
Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (Also Known As Dr. B.R. Shetty) S/O Late Shri. Shambhu Shetty - Petitioner
Versus
Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home Affairs Government Of India Represented By Its Commissioner (Immigration) East Block-Viii, Level-V Sector-1, R.K. Puram New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.15032, 13862 OF 2020
Decided On : 12-02-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri. K. Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Counsel For Shri. Sandeep Lahiri, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri. Aditya Singh, Cgc, Shri. B. Prasanna Kumar And Shri. D.R. Ravishankar, Advocate, Shri. Manu Kulkarni, Advocate
Point of Law: The only exception to the nature of the liability of the guarantor is provided in the section itself, which is only if it stated explicitly to be otherwise in the contract
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 19 and 21 - SARFAESI Act - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 128 - Bank - Lookout Circulars and Letter issued by the Bureau of Immigration - Challenged - Petitioner has presented W.P. with a prayer inter alia to declare endorsement by Bureau of Immigration not permitting him to travel to Abu Dhabi, UAE, as illegal - In response to notice issued by this Court, learned Central Government Counsel has filed a copy of letter written by Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration in reply to petitioner's letter seeking reasons for not allowing him to board the flight - It is stated in the said letter that BOB and PNB have issued LOCs respectively to prevent petitioner from leaving India.
Finding of the court: During course of hearing, this Court called upon learned advocates for Banks to explain on what security Banks permitted such large exposure - Answer given was, Companies to which loans are advanced were ''listed companies'' in London Stock Exchange and share value had shown that said Companies had high net worth - Tangible assets, if any, mortgaged in favour of Banks and their valuation is not forthcoming - It is time, law makers and Reserve Bank of India re-visit lending guidelines and procedures and take necessary remedial measures to ensure that public money is well secured before disbursement - In view of liberty available to petitioner to approach Bank authorities and explain that LOCs have been wrongly issued, petitioner is not entitled for relief in these writ petitions.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
Petitioner, a non-resident Indian has presented these two writ petitions challenging the Lookout Circulars (LOCs for short) issued by Bank of Baroda ('BOB' for short) and Punjab National Bank ('PNB' for short). Hence, they are disposed of by this common order:
Facts of the case:
2. On November 30, 2020, petitioner has presented W.P.No.13862/2020 with a prayer inter alia to declare the endorsement dated November 14, 2020 by Bureau of Immigration not permitting him to travel to Abu Dhabi, UAE, as illegal. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the learned Central Government Counsel has filed a copy of the letter dated December 8, 2020 written by the Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration in reply to petitioner's letter seeking reasons for not allowing him to board the flight. It is stated in the said letter that BOB and PNB have issued LOCs dated May 8, 2020 and July 18, 2020 respectively to prevent petitioner from leaving India.
3. In the second Writ petition No.15032/2020, petitioner has challenged the letter issued by the Bureau of Immigration with following prayers:
(a). Call for records of the Respondents relating to the issuance of Look Out Circular/communication dated 08.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 issued by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively, based on which the Petitioner was prevented from traveling out of Country and consequently the Respondent No.1 has issued the endorsement dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure "A").
(b). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 herein to provide a copy of the Look Out Circular/communication dated 08.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 respectively to the petitioner Annexure-"A".
(c). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the actions of the Respondent No.3 and 4 in issuing Look Out Circulars/communication dated 08.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 respectively, without any prior notice/intimation/communication to the Petitioner are highly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India Annexure-"A".
(d). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the actions of the Respondent No.1 and 2 in issuing an endorsement of cancellation in passport of the Petitioner dated 14.11.2020 by Respondent No.2 and not permitting the Petitioner to travel from Bengaluru to Abu Dhabi, UAE (Anneuxre-B) is highly arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law and is in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(e). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to travel from Bengaluru to Abu Dhabi, UAE, under such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in accordance with law.
(f). Grant costs of the proceedings; and grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."
4. It is averred in the writ petitions that petitioner has promoted several companies in pharmaceutical, hospitality, healthcare and foreign exchange businesses. He stepped down from the Management and handed over the companies to the respective Officers between 2015 and 2017. During late 2019 and early 2020, due to various illegal activities and mismanagement in the companies by the persons in-charge, the companies were unable to service the loans obtained from various banks.
5. Banks have initiated various proceedings against the Companies and also petitioner who is the guarantor. All transactions are governed by the laws in the UAE. As on date, 34 cases are pending in Dubai and Abu Dhabi filed by various Banks including Indian Banks and four cases in India.
6. Bank of Baroda has filed a suit for specific performance in Com.O.S.No.1/2020 against petitioner. The order passed on application for interim injunction by the Commercial Court has been challenged before this Court in Com.AP No.19/2020 and this
