Bombay High Court
Prateek Vinod Jatia vs Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home ... on 4 September, 2023
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla, M.M. Sathaye
2023:BHC-OS:9472-DB
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2777 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4886 OF 2022
Prateek Vinod Jatia ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home
Affairs And 2 Ors. ...Respondents
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 21551 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4401 OF 2022
Prateek Vinod Jatia ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home
Affairs And 2 Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Sernior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sunil A. Humbre &
Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, for Applicant/ Petitioner in both IAs.
Mr. Rajesh Dubey a/w. Ms. Shradha Agarwal, for Respondent
No.2/Indian Overseas Bank in IA/2777/2023.
Mr. Rabindra Hazari, Khozema Mukhtiar, for Respondent No.2/
Punjab National Bank in IA(L)/21551/2023.
Mr. D.P. Singh, for Respondent No.3/U.O.I in both IAs.
Page 1 of 9
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 P. C.
1. Interim Application No. 2777 of 2023 in Writ Petition No. 4886 OF 2022 is filed by the Applicant/Petitioner seeking permission to travel abroad from 22.09.2023 to 05.10.02023 as per the itinerary mentioned in para 6 of the said Application. The itinerary discloses that the Applicant/Petitioner would be travelling to Munich (Germany), Ibiza (Spain), Naples (Italy) and then back to Munich and thereafter to Mumbai. The accommodation and contact details [while the Applicant/ Petitioner is abroad], are also set out in the said paragraph. The reason for seeking this permission is because a Look Out Circular (for short the "LOC") has been issued against the Applicant/Petitioner at the instance of Indian Overseas Bank (for short the "IOB"). As far as the Writ Petition No. 4886 of 2022 is concerned, the LOC issued at the instance of the IOB along with the Office Memorandum (for short the "OM") are challenged as being violating of the fundamental right of the Applicant/ Petitioner. That challenge has been heard in a batch of Petitions, (the above petition being part of that batch), by another Division Bench of Page 2 of 9 SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 Husen 10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc this Court and the judgment is reserved. In the interregnum parties similarly placed like the Applicant/Petitioner have been, in the past, permitted to travel abroad for business as well as for other purposes.
2. As far as the Interim Application (L) No. 21551 of 2023 in Writ Petition No. 4401 of 2022 is concerned, the same is also filed by the Applicant/Petitioner seeking permission to travel abroad to the very same destinations during the very same period because a LOC has been issued against the Applicant/Original Petitioner, even by Punjab National Bank (for short PNB").
3. As far as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IOB is concerned, he has fairly stated that the Applicant/Petitioner has in fact entered into an OTS with IOB and has also paid substantial amounts towards his dues. He, therefore, submitted that considering the Applicant/Petitioner has been permitted to travel abroad in the past and he has returned back to India without breaching any of the conditions imposed upon him, IOB does not take serious objection to the Applicant/Petitioner travelling abroad, subject to such terms and conditions being imposed as this Court may deem fit.
4. As far as PNB is concerned, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the PNB vehemently opposed the permission sought by the Page 3 of 9 SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 Husen 10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc Applicant/Petitioner. He submitted that in the present case, the dues owed to PNB [as on November, 2022] are approximately Rs. 452 crores. The amounts due are from the principal borrower for whom the Applicant/Petitioner stood as a personal guarantor. Despite such huge amounts being outstanding, the Bank has been able to recover only approximately Rs. 14.66 cores by selling the mortgaged property. He submitted that in such a situation, the Applicant/Petitioner ought not to be allowed to travel abroad for business or pleasure without paying the dues of PNB. This apart, he submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the principal borrower (the Corporate Debtor) is before the NCLT and an Interim Resolution Professional has already been appointed in relation to the Corporate Debtor. He submitted that in these proceedings a Forensic Auditor was appointed and who has opined that there are several related proxy-transactions under which an amount of Rs.18.10 crores have been siphoned away to related parties only to defeat the claims of the legitimate creditors. He submitted that once all this is taken into consideration, this is not a fit case where the Applicant/Petitioner ought to be allowed to travel, either for business or pleasure. In the alternate to the above argument, the learned counsel submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to allow the Applicant/Petitioner to travel, then a condition may be Page 4 of 9 SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 Husen 10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc imposed upon the Applicant/Petitioner that before travelling abroad he files an affidavit in this court disclosing his all unencumbered assets so that PNB would be in a position to take appropriate action for recovery of its dues.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in both the Interim Applications. As far as the LOC issued at the instance of IOB is concerned, there is no real dispute. In fact, as recorded earlier, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IOB has a very taken reasonable stand stating that the Applicant/Petitioner can be permitted to travel abroad subject to the usual terms and conditions being imposed by this Court for his travel in the past.
6. Therefore, the only thing left to be considered now is the objections raised by the learned counsel for PNB. As far as these are concerned, we are of the view that the larger issue of challenge to the LOC as well as to the OM is heard by this Court and judgment is reserved. Considering the Applicant/Petitioner has been permitted to travel abroad in the past, we do not think that the objections raised by PNB should detain us from allowing him permission. We say this because all of these objections have been raised by PNB in its affidavit Page 5 of 9 SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 Husen 10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc dated 21.11.2022 filed in reply to the main petition. Despite this, in the past, this Court has, by its Order dated 05.01.2023 passed in IA(L)/39224/2022 in WP/4401/2022 permitted the Applicant/Petitioner to travel to Doha to attend the wedding. This order is Exhibit D-1 of IA(L)/21551/2023. Thereafter, even by Order dated 27.02.2023 (passed in IA/778/2023 in WP/4401/2022), the Petitioner was allowed to travel to Dubai from 02.03.2023 to 10.03.2023. When one looks at all this material, and keeps in mind that it is well-settled that the right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of PNB that the Applicant/Petitioner ought not to be allowed to travel.
7. As far as imposing the condition regarding the Applicant/Petitioner disclosing unencumbered assets on oath is concerned, we find that PNB has already filed an Original Application before the DRT for recovery of its dues. In that Original Application, PNB has also filed an Interim Application seeking an order of disclosure from the Applicant/Petitioner. Once this is a case, we do not think it would be necessary or prudent for us to impose such a condition on the Applicant/Petitioner.
Page 6 of 9
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 Husen 10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
8. In these circumstances, taking an overall view of the matter, we permit the Applicant/Petitioner to travel to Munich (Germany), Ibiza (Spain), Naples (Italy) between 22.09.2023 to 05.10.2023, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Applicant/Petitioner shall file an undertaking in this Court stating that he will strictly adhere to the itinerary mentioned in paragraph 6 of both the Interim Applications.
This affidavit shall also clearly state that the Applicant/Petitioner shall return back to India on or before 06.10.2023.
(b) The Applicant/Petitioner shall also file an undertaking not to apply for renewal or extension of this order until he returns back to India. These undertakings shall be served upon Advocates for both the Banks before departure.
(c) Within one week of returning to India, namely, within one week from 06.10.2023, the Applicant/Petitioner shall file an affidavit explaining the business meetings he held and with whom, together with the contact details of the persons he met and the details of the business he was able to generate, if any. Further, in the very same affidavit, the Page 7 of 9 SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 Husen 10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc Applicant/Petitioner shall also disclose on oath the monies expended on this trip and the sources from which the monies were expended. The reason we have imposed this condition is because substantial monies are owed to the IOB and PNB and it would be only fair that these disclosures are made once the Applicant/Petitioner returns back to India.
9. Subject to the above conditions, the impugned LOC issued at the instance of IOB as well as PNB shall remain suspended till 06.10.2023. We make it clear that this order only applies to the LOCs issued at the instance of IOB and PNB. It does not cover any other LOC or restraint order passed by any other agency/Bank.
10. The immigration authorities at all ports of departure including all airports shall permit the Applicant/Petitioner passage and allow him to take his flights out of the country irrespective of whether IOB and/or PNB have notified them or not, and irrespective of whether this suspension is noted in the immigration authorities' system or not.
11. The immigration authorities will not insist upon a certified copy of this order but will act on presentation of an authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.
Page 8 of 9
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 Husen 10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
12. Both the above Interim Applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ M.M. SATHAYE, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
Page 9 of 9
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
Signed by: Husen Nadaf
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/09/2023 18:53:06