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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.S. Ramachandra Rao,Harminder Singh Madaan , JJ.
Noor Paul – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors.. – Respondent
CWP-5492-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Ms. Shweta Nahata, Advocate, Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate, Mr. Mayur Kanwar, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established is the requirement for procedural safeguards in the issuance of Look Out Circulars, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

Headnote:

LOC - Right to Travel Abroad - Passports Act, 1967, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D.Ramarathnam, Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, State of West Bengal vs. AB.K. Ltd, Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India & Ors., Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.K.Ratna, Karti P.Chidambaram vs. Bureau of Immigration - Office Memoranda

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a guarantor for a loan, was prevented from traveling abroad due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Bank of India. She filed a Writ Petition to quash the LOC and seek permission to travel abroad for pursuing her studies.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issuance of the LOC was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that the petitioner's right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

Issues: The key issues were the legality of the LOC, the procedural safeguards in the issuance of LOC, and the petitioner's right to travel abroad.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for procedural safeguards in the issuance of LOC, citing various legal provisions and precedents. It held that the non-supply of a copy of the LOC, reasons for issuing it, and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC were violative of Article 21. It also highlighted the principles of natural justice and the requirement for a just, fair, and reasonable procedure.

Final Decision: The court set aside the LOC, directed the payment of costs to the petitioner, and ordered the expunging of remarks/entries in the petitioner's records/passport. It also mandated the supply of LOC and reasons to the subject and the provision of a post decisional opportunity, reading these requirements into the Office Memoranda concerning the issuance of LOCs.

ORDER

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her by the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India ( respondent No.3) at the instance of the Bank of India (respondent no.2) on the basis of which she was prevented from travelling abroad to Dubai on 22.2.2022 at the New Delhi Airport by the immigration authorities.

2. The respondent No.l is the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, the respondent No.2 is the Bank of India, respondent No.3 is the Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi, respondent No.4 is the Foreign Regional Registration office and respondent No.5 is a Company M/s Drish Shoes Ltd.

The Background facts

3. The petitioner herein, aged about 30 years, was a Director in respondent No.5 Company run by her father and others.

4. Respondent No.5 availed a loan from the respondent No.2-Bank for which the petitioner stood as a guarantor along with others.

5. She resigned from the Board of the respondent No.5 on 13.07.2021 but continues to be the guarantor for the loan taken by respondent No.5 from respondent No.2.

6. There was a default committed by respondent No.5 in servicing the loan availed by it from respondent No.2 and so the said respondent recalled the loan by issuing the demand notice dt. 22.11.2021 to respondent No.5 and its guarantors including the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding a sum of Rs.121,17,11,148.70.

7. It is stated by petitioner that one of the operational creditors of the respondent No.5 filed on 02.09.2021 an application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 before the NCLT, Chandigarh and when the matter had come up on 31.01.2022, counsel for respondent No.5 had informed the NCLT that they are admitting the claim of the said creditor and also sought time to file reply before the next date.

8. Respondent No.5 also filed a petition before the NCLT, Chandigarh under Section 10 of the IBC for initiation of CIRP of respondent No.5 and the said application is said to be under scrutiny before the Registry of the NCLT.

9. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5 through one of its Directors sent a letter on 18.12.2021 offering 'voluntary and peaceful handover and possession of all mortgaged assets' of respondent No.5 to the respondent No.2 and requested the latter to sell them and appropriate the proceeds of the sale to the amount due to the respondent No.2. The events which happened on 22.2.2022

10. While things stood thus, the petitioner was scheduled to travel Dubai for the Dubai Expo-2022 and was to board flight from New Delhi on 22.2.2022, but at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, she was prevented from boarding the flight AI 915 at 06.15 PM on the ground that a Look-Out Circular (LOC) was issued against her, her family members and associate directors of the respondent No.5 by the Airport Immigration authorities.

11. The petitioner contends that even copy of the LOC was not provided to her and she was compelled to come back from the Airport.

12. Admittedly, the said LOC dt. 28.12.2021 (R2/1) is said to have been issued at the instance of the respondent No.2.

13. The petitioner had applied for a Postgraduate MBA Program being offered by prestigious Boston University Questrom School of Business, Massachusetts, USA. She was successful in getting a seat to study the said MBA Programme in the said University and was also awarded a 90% scholarship for the said study by the said University as can be seen from Annexure P7 email. The said program would start from August, 2022 and would go on for 24 months.

14. The petitioner has to apply for Visa formalities at the earliest and also to remit a non-refundable deposit of $1500 by 01.04.2022 to the said University as a token of having accepted the offer of the University.

The instant Writ Petition

15. On an apprehension that she would not be allowed to travel abroad to pursue her education because of the LOC dt. 28.12.2021, she has

              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