The court has the discretion to permit travel abroad subject to specific conditions, and the parties' voluntary decision not to enjoy the travel time may influence the court's decision not to interfere with the order.

ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1.1 By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the oral interim order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No.1 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No.22577 of 2022, whereby the Court allowed the Civil Application and permitted respondent No.2 to travel abroad. The order which is in challenge was by way of Civil Application moved by the applicants – original petitioners, who have placed the itinerary with the air tickets indicating its intention to travel from Ahmedabad to London via Dubai for a scheduled time period for the purpose of his business. The order passed, which is in challenge, permitted such travel, subject to certain conditions.

“5. In view of the above orders passed, pending the petition, the present application is allowed in terms of para 9(a) and the travel of the applicant no.2 shall be subject to the following conditions :-

(i) the applicant no.2 shall file an undertaking before this Court indicating his flight details and date of arrival in India and shall undertake 14.02.2023 to 26.02.2023 that, he will return back on or before the date mentioned above;

(ii) he shall make a deposit of Rs.20 lakhs by way of demand draft in the name of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat, which shall be deposited in the Account, which will be returned to him after he comes back to country, for which no formal order of this Court is required;

(iii) he shall not open or close any bank account overseas and shall not enter into any kind of property transactions abroad;

(iv) he shall give itinerary of his visits and places of residence of foreign countries before proceeding to travel to the respective countries;

(v) if the undertaking and the aforesaid terms is not complied with, the applicant no.2 shall face such consequences as may be deemed fit and appropriate.

(vi) the applicant no.2 shall not seek any adjournment in any proceedings before any authority and/or court on the ground that he is out of country.”

1.2 Aggrieved bank is before this Court, questioning this order on various counts which is actually on the ground of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not disclosed fully and correct facts. Therefore, it is urged that this Court needs to interfere.

2. We have heard extensively learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch, assisted by learned advocate Mr.Dhruvkumar S. Chauhan for the applicant – Bank and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Manish Bhatt, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Munjaal Bhatt for opponents No.1 and 2.

3. Noticing the extent of arguments and the issues involved in the main petition, as the travel time is tonight, instructions to learned Senior Advocate Mr.Bhatt, makes him to state that respondent No.2 would defer his travel plan for now, as the scheduled dates incorporated in the order from 14.02.2023 to 26.02.2023. Once again he shall approach the learned Single Judge for rescheduling his travel itinerary. It is brought to our notice through the communication dated 10.02.2023 addressed to the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. that the resolution plan for Sintex Industries Limited (the “Corporate Debtor” / “Company”) by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad has been approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 pursuant to its order dated 10.02.2023. The copy of the order shall bring before the Court. Request also is made to place before the Court the L.O.C. order for perusal of the Court.

4. Considering the fact that when the order impugned was passed, the bank, though represented, had not participated as nobody appeared for respondents No.3 to 5 though the present appellant is respondent No.4. Learned advocate Mr.Buch ensures this Court also make a request to the learned Single Judge to permit the participation of the Bank at the time of deciding the issue of rescheduling of the travel itinerary.

5. Considering the issues involved as has been debated before this Court, we permit both the sides to also make a request to the learn