Madras High Court
Mrs.Radhika Vijay Kumar vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Ii on 11 February, 2014
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-2-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KALYANASUNDARAM Writ Petition No.2621 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Mrs.Radhika Vijay Kumar .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Debts Recovery Tribunal II, 4th Floor Spencer Tower, 770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2. Punjab National Bank T.Nagar Branch having office at No.10, Raja Street, Chennai-17, Represented by its Assistant General Manager. 3. Central Bank of India Corporate Finance Branch, Addison buildings, No.803, Annasalai, Chennai-2, Represented by its Chief Manager. 4. IDBI Bank Ltd. Annasalai Branch, No.115, Annasalai, Saidapet, Chennai-15, Represented by its Deputy General Manager. 5. L & T infrastructure Finance Company Ltd., Having its Registered Office at Mount-Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai-89, Represented by its Regional Head-Chennai. 6. Point Red Telecom Ltd Represented by Managing Director, Having registered office at No.18/11B Roopena Agrahar, BegurHObi, Hosur Main Road, Madiwala, Bangalore-68. 7. R.Vijay Kumar 8. R.Ram Kumar 9. Gemini Communications Ltd., Old No.56, New No.3, Dr.Ranga Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18. 10. The Chief General Manager, Southern Telecom Projects, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 25, Greenways Lane, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. .. Respondents. (R-6 to R10 given up by an endorsement, dated 11.2.2014) Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of I.As.600, 601 and 602 of 2013 in O.A.No.254 of 2013, pending on the file of the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, at Chennai, culminating in the common order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj For Respondents : Mr.M.L.Ganesh (R2 to R5) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5.
2. The respondents 6 to 10 in the present writ petition have been given up by the petitioner and an endorsement has also been made to that effect, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, has passed an interim order, dated 27.12.2013, in I.A.Nos.600, 601 and 602 of 2013, which reads as follows:
"i. IA-600/2013:- Respondents 2, 3 and 5/Defendants 2,3 and 5 are directed not to leave India without the permission of this Tribunal, pending disposal of OA-254/2013.
Respondents 2, 3 and 5/Defendants 2, 3 and 5 are directed to surrender their Indian Passports to the Registrar of this Tribunal, on or before 30.01.2014."
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the 5th respondent in I.A.No.600 of 2013, has stated that the petitioner is an eminent carnatic vocalist, who has been performing music concerts in many foreign countries and certain enquiries have been made from Malaysia, with regard to the music concerts to be performed in the said country. Therefore, she is likely to travel to Malaysia in the first week of March, 2014. In such circumstances, the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in I.A.Nos.600, 601 and 602 of 2013, asking her to surrender her Indian passport to the Registrar of the Tribunal and not to leave India, without the permission of the Tribunal, is arbitrary and illegal.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that there is no legal sanctity for the interim order passed by the Tribunal, especially, in view of the fact that no such prayer had been made by the applicant, in I.A.No.600 of 2013, for the Tribunal to issue such directions. He had further submitted that no proper reasons have been given by the Tribunal to pass the impugned order.
6. It has also been stated that the petitioner has not borrowed any money. She had only pledged the share certificates of Gemini Communication Limited, Alwarpet, for the loan borrowed by Point Red Telecom Limited, Bangalore. Therefore, there is no penal liability on the part of the petitioner to discharge the loan amount, said to have been borrowed by Point Red Telecom Limited, Bangalore.
7. The petitioner had also filed an affidavit, dated 6.2.2014. Paragraphs 7,8, 9 and 11 of the said affidavit read as follows:
"7. Further, My sister and I frequently travel abroad to perform Carnatic music concerts. We have completed performance tours of the United States of America, Malaysia and Singapore. We have also performed in the music series organised by Kamban Kazhagam in Colombo, Sri Lanka. We have recently completed performances in most of the prestigious Sabhas of Chennai during the December Music Festival and have received favourable reviews and many enquiries from abroad to schedule concerts in numerous countries having a large NRI presence. I submit that the impugned ex parte order would cause irreparable damage and injury to my career and reputation in the Carnatic music circle. If my passport would stand impounded by the 1st respondent and I am restrained from travelling outside the country, I would not be able to make any commitments for concerts outside the country and be unable to commit to any of the numerous enquiries I have received.
8. I submit that I have already received a very promising enquiry from Malaysia and I am likely to travel there to perform on the 1st of March, 2014. To proceed to confirm the performance, I need to confirm that I have valid travel documents and that I am available to travel. I already currently hold a valid Malaysian Visa that enables me to travel to Malaysia for the purpose of performances and my sister and I are keen to perform in Malaysia on the occasion of Siva Ratri.
9. I further submit that before I can make a final commitment to travel abroad for a concert, I would need to first attain the relevant "performance" visa, which I would be unable to do without my passport. This would cause irreparable damage to my reputation as a performer and result in my not receiving any engagements for performances in the future as well.
10....
11. I submit that I will not under any circumstances leave the country permanently in order to avoid any alleged liability. I submit that this Hon'ble Court may take into consideration that Chennai is the worldwide hub for Carnatic music and it is not viable for me to reside anywhere else in the light of my successful carnatic music career which is entirely intertwined with my sister who is married and permanently settled in Chennai. I further submit that I neither own nor have taken on rent any property anywhere else in the world and that I do not have any long term visas or travel documents of any nature that would allow me to relocate to a foreign country."
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5 had submitted that there is a huge liability of over 200 crores to be discharged by Point Red Telecom Limited, Bangalore. The petitioner had furnished the share certificates of the Gemini Communication Limited, Alwarpet, as security for the said loan availed by Point Red Telecom Limited, Bangalore. In such circumstances, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, had passed an interim order, dated 27.12.2013, asking the petitioner to surrender her Indian passport to Registrar of the Tribunal and had also directed her not to leave India without the permission of the Tribunal, pending disposal of O.A.No.254 of 2013.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents 2 to 5, and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, including the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, dated 6.2.2014, we are of the considered view that the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, had passed the impugned order, dated 27.12.2013, without having sufficient reasons to do so. It is noted that the applicant, in I.A.No.600 of 2013, have not shown sufficient cause for the Tribunal to pass the impugned order, directing the 5th respondent in the said application, namely, the petitioner herein, to surrender her Indian passport to the Registrar of the Tribunal and to further direct her not to leave India, without the permission of the Tribunal. It is also noted that the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, dated 27.12.2013, would infringe certain fundamental rights, including the right of the petitioner to travel, as held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248.
10. Further, in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, dated 6.2.2014, we are of the view that the interim order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, dated 27.12.2013, made in I.A.Nos.600, 601 and 602 of 2013, to the extent that it directs the 5th respondent, in I.A.No.600 of 2013, the petitioner herein, to surrender her Indian passport to the Registrar of the Tribunal and not to leave India, without the permission of the Tribunal, is set aside. However, the other directions issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in its order, dated 27.12.2013, in I.A.Nos.600, 601 and 602 of 2013, as against the respondents 2 and 3 in I.A.Nos.600, 601 and 602 of 2013, would stand unaltered, without any modification for the present. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No (M.J.J.) (M.K.K.S.J.)
csh 11-2-2014
To
1. Debts Recovery Tribunal II,
4th Floor Spencer Tower, 770-A,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
AND
M.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.
csh
Writ Petition No.2621 of 2014
11-2-2014