SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Mr. Himayath Ali Khan, S/o Gulzar Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
Writ Petition No.24074 of 2022 (GM – RES)
Decided on : 16-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI H.SHANTI BHUSHAN, SRI NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADVOCATE

Point of Law: An LOC, which is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with his right of personal liberty and free movement, certainly has adverse civil consequences.

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41, A and B - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Guarantor to loan - Defaulted in repayment - LOC to be arbitrary - Petitioner sought a direction or declaration declaring that action of 2nd respondent/Bank in issuing LOC to be arbitrary and illegal and also for other consequential reliefs – Petitioner, even if it is construed to be that he is Director of Company, travel of a citizen cannot be curtailed by Bank on ground that he is in default of loan amount - Para 14.

Finding of the Court: High Court of Delhi in case of RANA AYYUB holds that LOC is issued against petitioner therein in hottest haste as he is not accused in any crime so registered - Delhi High Court holds that personal liberty to travel cannot be taken away except in accordance with law permits travel of petitioner - Judgments of High Court of Madras and High Court of Delhi what would unmistakably emerge is, taking recourse to LOC against persons like petitioner if they have a role to play in alleged episode of default of payment of loan to tune of several crores – Court deem it appropriate to permit petitioner to travel for a brief period and come back to shores of nation, after conclusion of his work at UAE and Saudi Arabia - This direction is apt to be issued in light of fact that petitioner is not an accused in any crime registered except recovery proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru where he is not a party to proceedings.

Result: Petition is disposed.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a Look Out Circular (‘LOC’ for short) dated 07-03-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent/Bank of Baroda (‘the Bank’ for short) and executed by the 1st respondent/Bureau of Immigration and has sought a consequent direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or declaration declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent/Bank in issuing LOC to be arbitrary and illegal and also for other consequential reliefs.

2. Heard Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri H.Shanti Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri Nagaraj Damodar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be having certain business operations at Bangalore in wood products for over 35 years. A Company by name Associate Décor Limited (‘Company’ for short) comes to be registered in the year 2007 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, a company that would deal with wood products in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner claims to have assets and businesses both in India and abroad particularly in United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘SA’) for which purpose the petitioner frequently travels both to UAE and SA. The Company had obtained finance from the 2nd respondent/Bank mortgaging a property worth Rs.199/- crores. The petitioner was at the relevant point in time Director of the Company and had not stood as a guarantor to the loan obtained by the Company. According to the averment in the petition the petitioner was only a non-functional Director and there were number of guarantors who stood guarantee to the loan advanced to the Company.

4. When the loan became sticky, consortium of Banks initiated various proceedings against the petitioner as the Company had defaulted in repayment after obtaining finance from several Banks. One such proceeding was instituted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘DRT’) in O.A.No.629 of 2021 by the Bank against the Company for recovery of the amount that was due to be paid to the Bank. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings. The averment in the entire petition is that the petitioner is a non-Executive Director of the Company as he has nothing to do with the borrowals of the Company. Things standing thus, the petitioner wanted to travel to UAE and SA for business purpose. At that point in time, LOC is issued by the 2nd respondent/Bank on the ground that recovery proceedings before the DRT are pending consideration against the petitioner and the petitioner, if permitted to travel is likely to escape from those proceedings.

5. The petitioner on coming to know that his right to travel has been curtailed by the act of the Bank approached the Bank seeking to withdraw the LOC by bringing to its notice that he has nothing to do with the loan account or the loan amount that was sought and granted to the Company. The LOC, as observed hereinabove, has originated from the 2nd respondent and the reason for such generation of LOC is that DRT proceedings are pending against the Company. On receipt of a requisition from the 2nd respondent/Bank for issuance of LOC, the 1st respondent/Bureau of Immigration issues LOC against the petitioner on 07-03-2022 and curtails his travels. The curtailment of his travel is what drives the petitioner to this Curt raising a challenge to the LOC so issued by the 2nd respondent and executed by the 1st respondent.

6. The learned senior counsel Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the petitioner is noway concerned with the finance that is borrowed by the Company from the 2nd respondent/Bank. The petitioner is only a

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top