Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJIB BANERJEE, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Chennai – Petitioner
Versus
Atul Jain and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 24466 of 2021
Decided On : 15-11-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A.L. Somayaji.
For the Respondents: N.L. Rajah, Kalyan Jabhak.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the authority of issuing notices, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the first respondent to seek a copy of the lookout notice from the relevant Ministry.
Headnote:
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Debts Recovery Tribunal - I.A. No. 1167 of 2021, I.A. No. 46 of 2020 - O.A. No. 30 of 2020 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the directions issued by the impugned order, the order dated January 25, 2020, and the implications of the lookout notice. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the first respondent to seek a copy of the lookout notice from the relevant Ministry.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated November 1, 2021 in I.A. No. 1167 of 2021 in I.A. No. 46 of 2020 in O.A. No. 30 of 2020 as unconstitutional and exceeding jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the first respondent to seek a copy of the lookout notice from the relevant Ministry. The first respondent was also permitted to make a prayer before the relevant Tribunal to take up I.A. No. 1168 of 2021.
Issues: The issues revolved around the directions issued by the impugned order, the order dated January 25, 2020, and the existence of the lookout notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the impugned order exceeded its authority and set it aside. It also allowed the first respondent to seek a copy of the lookout notice from the relevant Ministry.
Final Decision: W.P. No. 24466 of 2021 was allowed, and W.M.P. No. 25784 of 2021 was closed. The first respondent was ordered to pay costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioning bank.
JUDGMENT :
SANJIB BANERJEE, J.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of Debts Recovery Tribunal II at Chennai and quash the impugned order dated November 1, 2021 in I.A. No. 1167 of 2021 in I.A. No. 46 of 2020 in O.A. No. 30 of 2020 as unconstitutional and that said impugned order exceeds the jurisdiction.
1. The petition is directed against a rather remarkable order passed by the DRT II at Chennai on November 01, 2021.
2. In the fitness of things, it may do well to start with the tail before getting to the head and noticing the directions issued by the impugned order before seeking to ascertain the reasons that may have impelled the Tribunal to act thus:
“20. In the result, the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad strictly in accordance with the proposed itinerary and for this purpose the order dated 25.1.2020 passed in I.A. No. 46 of 2020 is kept in abeyance for a period of two months from 2.11.2021 so as to enable the petitioner to complete the first limb of his intended foreign trip i.e. from 10.11.2021 and ending on 20.11.2021. The consideration of extending this order will depend upon compliance of the previous orders of this Tribunal by the petitioner. Further, this order to keep in abeyance the order of this Tribunal dated 25.1.2020 in I.A. No. 46 of 2020 for a period of two months will be subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner has to produce the passport after returning from the first trip along with an affidavit giving details of his travel and the results of the discussion he had with any investor bank and strategic investors.
(ii) The petitioner shall not enter into any contract which will further expose the debtor company or its foreign subsidiaries.
(iii) The petitioner shall not represent the debtor company under CIRP before any of the intended investors.
(iv) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber any of the foreign assets of any of the subsidiary companies or the suspended Directors of the company under CIRP.
(v) The petitioner can produce this order before the competent authorities to withdraw the lookout notice, if required.
(vi) The respondents shall also co-operate with the petitioner so as to communicate this order to competent authorities, if so required to enable petitioner's proposed travel.”
3. The order was passed on an interim application being I.A. No. 1167 of 2021 in pending proceedings before the DRT. The prayer made by the first respondent herein in I.A. No. 1167 of 2021 was as follows:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to cancel the look out notice issued against the petitioner and permit the petitioner to travel abroad as per the tentative plan and thus render justice.”
4. The affidavit filed by the first respondent in support of I.A. No. 1167 of 2021 does not specifically refer to any lookout notice or the date thereof; but it refers to an order passed by the DRT in I.A. No. 46/2020 at paragraph 6 of such affidavit. The directions issued by the DRT need be noticed. Though the date of the order is not indicated in the affidavit filed by the first respondent, according to the petitioning bank, such order was passed on January 25, 2020:
“(a) The respondents 2 and 3 shall deposit their passport before the Registry of this Tribunal, within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(b) Simultaneously, respondent 2 and 3 shall also file an affidavit duly undertaking that they will not leave the country without obtaining the approval from the Tribunal, within three days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
(c) On filing of such an undertaking affidavit, respondents 2 and 3 can take back their original passports from the Tribunal by submitting an undertaking that they will produce the same as and when directed by the Tribunal.
(d) In the event of any breac
