Mritunjay Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 16 March, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Mritunjay Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 16 March, 2022

Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha

16.03.2022
 Ct. No. 13
 Sl.14
    pk                         W.P.A. 3928 of 2022

                                  Mritunjay Singh
                                       Versus
                              Union of India and others

                             (Through Video Conference)

                    Mr. R. Chatterjee,
                    Mr. D. R. Mukherjee,
                    Mr. Arijit Dey
                                              .... for the petitioner.

                    Mr. Pramit Kumar Ray,
                    Mr. Somnath Ghoshal
                             ... for the respondent nos. 1 and 2..

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Prusti ... for the respondent Bank.

A thoroughly illegible writ petition has been filed. The relevant documents being the main LOC, particularly extension thereof, is quite illegible. The bail order issued by the CBI Court in R. C. 1 of 2012 is equally illegible.

This Court has yet taken up the writ petition since the petitioner has produced typed copies before this Court. The facts are that the petitioner is a captain of a ship and was a director of Kaushik Global Logistic Limited (KGLL) from 19.03.2009 till 11.07.2012. Certain loans were availed of by KGLL from Bank of Baroda. The account of said KGLL became non-performing assets within nine months of availment and the current dues are in excess of Rs.60 crores.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since his client has been allowed bail on the specific ground that he is a captain of a ship and is required to travel outside India, the lookout notice and conditions thereof are onerous. The petitioner is unable to travel outside India. It is also submitted that the petitioner has complied with all terms and conditions of bail and shall appear before concerned court as and when necessary. The petitioner already enjoys leave under Section 205 of the Cr. P. C. Counsel for the Union of India has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has not annexed the basic documents required for interim relief, the prayer for interim stay of the lookout notice is also aggressively opposed given the gravity of the charges against him.

Counsel for the Bank has also opposed the prayer for dilution of the lookout notice.

Counsel for the petitioner also submits that under a similar lookout notice issued at the instance of the State Bank of India and another creditor, the petitioner has been allowed relief.

This Court is not satisfied that the order of the Co-ordinate Bench can be a ground for relief in the instant case.

Having carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view 3 that permitting the petitioner to leave the country or dilute the LOC, would seriously hamper and prejudice not only the pending proceedings instituted by the CBI but also the recovery process of the Bank.

There shall be no interim order at this stage. Let affidavit in opposition be filed within a period of three weeks. Reply, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.

Liberty to mention after completion of pleadings.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)