Delhi High Court - Orders
Shalini Khanna vs Union Of India & Anr on 1 December, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10951/2022 and CM APPL. 52004/2022
SHALINI KHANNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Deep
Palalag & Ms. Apoorva Jain,
Advocates. (M:9310007957)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr.
Kamal Digpaul & Ms. Swati Kwatra,
Advocates. (M:9811157265)
Mr. Ashish Verma & Mr. Arnav
Sangal, Advocate for R-2.
(M:9871603434)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 01.12.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL.52004/20222. This is an application by the Petitioner - Ms. Shalini Khanna seeking permission to travel abroad to Dubai between 19th December, 2022 - 28th December, 2022. The present challenges the Look Out Circular, which has been issued at the instance of the Respondent no. 2 - Bank of Baroda by the Respondent no.1 - Union of India.
3. The case of the Respondent Bank is that the Petitioner is the guarantor for a loan, which was issued in favour of M/s. Metaphor Exports Private Limited in 2013. According to the Bank, one of the collaterals in the loan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2022 15:27:29 was Flat No. PPC-124/12th Floor, Tower No. C, DLF Park Heights, DLF Park Place, DLF Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana.
4. Disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Bank. According to the Bank, the Petitioner, had not executed the mortgage deed of the said property. There were defaults on the loan, which led to proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter 'DRT'). The DRT passed a detailed order on 12th October, 2017 wherein it had held that the Bank was entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 2,95,74,316/- from the Petitioner. It is the admitted position that, as on date, the property in question has been auctioned and the sale proceeds are lying deposited with the DRT. This decision has been challenged before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 'DRAT') and the said challenge is pending.
5. The Bank has also sought the issuance of the LOC in view of these disputes which led to the Petitioner being off-loaded from the aircraft when she was travelling with her daughter to Singapore in July, 2022 the Petitioner then challenged the LOC, by way of the present writ petition.
6. When the present petition was listed on 22nd July, 2022, this Court had observed that if there is any emergent need for travel by the Petitioner, she is free to move an application. The present application has now been moved.
7. Mr. Digpaul, CGSC for the Union of India submits that the LOC has already been issued at the instance of Bank of Baroda. Ld. counsel for Bank of Baroda submits that there is a difference between the amount being claimed by the Bank of about Rs.75 - 80 lakhs plus applicable interest and the amount lying deposited with the DRT.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2022 15:27:298. Prima facie considering the fact that the mortgaged property has been auctioned and a substantial part of the Petitioner's liability as per the DRT's order is lying deposited with the DRT the perceived threat of flight risk is taken care of. Further, both the parties are also before the DRT and DRAT. Thus, the Petitioner can be given permission to travel subject to certain conditions.
9. However, in view of the fact that the Petitioner wishes to travel abroad, she is permitted to travel abroad, subject to the following conditions:
i. The Petitioner shall furnish security to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the worthy Registrar General within one week. The said security shall remain valid till the return of the Petitioner. ii. That Petitioner shall furnish a detailed affidavit disclosing her detailed programme, including her stay at various stations abroad, telephone numbers and residential/hotel addresses. The Petitioner shall also file an undertaking that she shall adhere to the programme mentioned in the affidavit and not visit any other stations.
iii. The Petitioner will also provide the contact numbers which would be used by her during the period she stays abroad, at least one of the said contact numbers will be kept operational at all times, subject to all just exceptions including the period she is in the aircraft.
iv. That she shall intimate the Court before leaving and within 72 hours of her return from abroad.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2022 15:27:29
v. That Petitioner will file a self-attested copy of her passport along with a copy of her visa in the Court on her return to India. vi. The permission to travel abroad given in this order shall be subject to other applicable conditions and will not be deemed as a direction to any other authority.
vii. The Petitioner undertakes to return to India and participate in the proceedings before the DRT/DRAT and that she shall be bound by any orders that may be passed by the DRAT, subject to any challenges thereof.
viii. In case any of the above conditions are violated, the security will be forfeited to the State.
10. On a query it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner's husband is in India and is not intending to travel.
11. With these conditions, permission to travel is granted to the Petitioner. CM APPL.52004/2022 is disposed of. W.P.(C) 10951/2022
12. List before the Registrar General on 8th December, 2022.
13. List before the Court on date fixed i.e., 26th April, 2023.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 1, 2022/dk/hh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2022 15:27:29