Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. Patel, Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
Deepak Shenoy - Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 29205 of 2021
Decided On : 14-12-2021
VR Dhond, Advocate, Shrey Fatterpekar, Advocate, Shailesh Mishra, Advocate, Neeta Solanki, Advocate, Ashish Jha, Advocate, Rathimi Maravarman, Advocate
The court considered the individual's ties to the country, travel history, and absence of criminal charges in deciding on travel restrictions imposed by the LOC.
Headnote:
Look Out Circulars - Travel Restrictions - The court permitted the Petitioner to travel overseas subject to certain conditions and stayed the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by the Public Sector Banks.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a director of three companies, was stopped at Mumbai airport when he was to fly to Chicago for a business meeting and was informed that his name was in the LOC issued at the instance of the State Bank of India (SBI).
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Petitioner to travel overseas from a specified period, subject to filing a full itinerary of his overseas travel and an undertaking to return to India on a specified schedule.
Issues: The main issue was the validity and impact of the LOC issued by the SBI on the Petitioner's travel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the Petitioner's strong roots in India, his past travel history, and the absence of any criminal case against him in allowing him to travel overseas despite the LOC.
Final Decision: The court stayed the operation of the LOC for a specified period, allowing the Petitioner to travel overseas and directing the SBI to update the immigration system to permit the Petitioner's travel.
JUDGMENT
1. This is one more matter on the same lines as previous matters, all relating to Look Out Circulars or LOC issued at the instance of the Public Sector Banks. In previous matters, we have permitted the Petitioners to travel overseas subject to certain conditions and, in the meantime, stayed the LOCs. We propose to pass a similar order in this matter.
2. The Petitioner was a director of three companies, Medec Dragon Private Limited, Medec Infra Private Limited and DBS Tradelink & Advisors Private Limited. The State Bank of India or SBI is Respondent No. 1. It was one of the lenders to one Sudar Industries Limited or SIL. The Petitioner was appointed additional director of SIL in 2010. Later, he was an independent director. He resigned as such in 2012. He was an additional director of SIL from 2013 to 2014. After that, he held the position of Chief Operating Officer of SIL. However, at no time was he involved in SIL’s finances or borrowings. He signed no loan agreements. He was only in charge of production and marketing. He has never been a shareholder of SIL.
3. In 2017, the Petitioner took two Credit Card loans personally from SBI to the tune of Rs. 8 lakhs. These loans were fully repaid in 2021.
4. In July 2018 a Petition for winding up of SIL was admitted in this Court.
5. In August 2021, Punjab National Bank and Deutsche Bank sanctioned loans of Rs. 9.50 crores and Rs. 15 crores to Medec, in which the Petitioner is one of the directors. Those loans are being serviced.
6. On 12th December 2021, the Petitioner was stopped at Mumbai airport when he was to fly to Chicago for a business meeting. It was only then that he was informed that his name was in the LOC issued at the instance of the SBI.
7. The Petitioner has strong roots in India, where he holds assets, has family and has consistently served as a director of one or more companies.
8. He has travelled overseas one hundred times in the last ten years. The details are at pages 13 and 16. There is no criminal case against him. He has not been evading arrest or service of any warrant.
9. While we will hear the challenges to the office memoranda under which these LOCs are issued, in February 2022, and we will take this matter with that group, we see no reason to depart from the pattern of orders that we made on 9th December 2021.
10. Mr Dhond for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner intends to leave Mumbai tomorrow, 15th night and 16th morning and propose to return India around 25th or 26th December 2021. Hence, we pass the following order:
(a) The LOC in question will not come in the way of the Petitioner going overseas from 15th/16th December 2021 until 25th/26th December 2021.
(b) The Petitioner must file with the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court a full itinerary of his overseas travel with all details, contact numbers etc.
(c) The Immigration Authorities at Mumbai Airport will permit the Petitioner to pass through immigration and to board his flight irrespective of whether the immigration system has been updated and SBI has informed the Immigration Authorities or not.
11. We are compelled to make this order because we are informed that despite specific previous directions, banks have not communicated our order to the Immigration Authorities.
12. We accept the Petitioner’s undertaking to return to India on the schedule mentioned above. If a further extension is required, it will be granted only after the Petitioner returns to this country and not otherwise. We will not entertain an order of extension while the Petitioner is overseas.
13. The State Bank of India will immediately inform the Immigration Authorities to update the system so that the necessary instructions can be issued. At the cost of repetition, even if the SBI fails not do so, and we intend to hold the SBI to compliance, the Immigration Authorities will, on production of an authenticated copy of this order and without insisting on a certified copy, permit the Petitioner to travel as above.
14. In the m
