( 1 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for both the sides are heard for final disposal. Hence, Rule.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the respondent Bank has filed O. A. No. 156 of 2001 against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 37,29,68,080. 84 with accrued interest and other consequential reliefs. It appears that in the said O. A. , simultaneously an application was submitted for interim injunction by the Bank, who was plaintiff therein for the relief, inter alia, to restrain the defendants therein, including the petitioners herein, including the transfer of the property, the appointment of the commissioner and it was also prayed to restrain the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, including the petitioners herein from leaving India without prior permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal and other consequential reliefs.

( 3 ) ON 23. 4. 2001. the Tribunal granted interim injunction with respect to the mortgaged immovable properties and hypothecated assets, however, did not grant any ex parte interim injunction for restraining, the defendants Nos. 2 to 7 therein from leaving india, etc. The matter remained therein for about six years and more and on 6. 8. 2007, the Bank moved another application Ex. 44 for the relief, inter alia, to restrain defendants nos. 2, 4 to 7 therein to surrender their passports and not to leave India, without prior permission of the Court. It appears that ultimately vide order dated 4. 9. 2009. the Tribunal below the said, Application restrained defendants Nos. 2 to 7 not to leave India without prior permission of the Tribunal. The tribunal also granted prayer at Clause 'c' of the Application, restraining defendants nos. 2 to 7 from transferring or disposing or alienating or parting with, in any manner, their immovable properties, more particularly described in the schedule. It appears that the petitioners carried the matter in appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 237 of 2009 and also applied for interim stay. However, D. R. A. T. , in appeal, vide order dated 8. 10. 2009 observed that the appellants defendants have not approached the Tribunal for seeking the permission to leave the country, and further observed that they may approach before the tribunal justifying the travel abroad and seek permission accordingly and if they do not get permission, they may approach D. R. A. T. , and the matter was stood over to 18. 11. 2009. It is under these circumstances, the present petition by the petitioners for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by d. R. A. T. , as well as the order passed by the d. R. T. It may be recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioners declared that the petitioners are not objecting to the interim injunction granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 4. 9. 2009 and the challenge is limited to the order for restraining the petitioners from leaving India, without prior permission of the Tribunal.

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Vakil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel for respondent Bank.

( 5 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is ho power with the Tribunal to grant interim injunction, restricting the travel by the petitioners, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent bank contended that there is power with the Tribunal to grant injunction and he also submitted that all types of injunctions can be granted, which are available for exercise of the power to the civil Court as per C. P. C. Therefore, it was submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal for granting interim injunction, restraining concerned defendants therein, who are petitioners herein from leaving the country without prior permission is legal and valid.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, the only aspect which deserves to be considered is as to whether the drt exercising the powers under the Recovery of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has the power to grant in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document