Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

D.MURUGESAN, J.

This Court is called upon to decide the question as to whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal would have power to direct the borrower or the guarantor to surrender the passport to the Tribunal and to further restrain the borrower or the guarantor from leaving the country without the written permission of the Debts Recovery Tribunal/the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.

2. The above issue arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner is M/s ICICI Bank Limited, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank'). M/s Subhiksha Trading Services Limited availed credit facilities in the form of term loan for their retail trading business in the sale of grocery, fruits and vegetables, pharma, mobiles and fast moving consumer goods and also for expansion of their business in the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The said facilities were availed in the year 2005. The third respondent by name R.Subramanian (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'), who is the Managing Director of the said company, had also executed Personal Guarantee in favour of the bank guaranteeing the due repayment of the facilities except the credit card facility. As the company failed and committed default in repayment of the loan and the interest, the bank had recalled the facilities and called upon the company to pay the dues. As the company failed to pay the dues demanded in the notice, the bank invoked the guarantee of the respondent. Despite receipt of the said notice, the respondent also failed and neglected to make payments. In the circumstances, the bank filed O.A.No.96 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.221,97,76,635.78p as on 31st December, 2009, which application stood transferred to the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II and renumbered as O.A.No.190 of 2010. Along with the said O.A., among other interlocutory applications, the bank also filed I.A.No.250 of 2010 under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 seeking for a direction to the said R.Subramanian, the respondent, to surrender his passport and not to leave the country without the permission of the Tribunal. By order dated 30.9.2010, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai allowed the said I.A., and directed the respondent to deposit his passport with the Registrar of the Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of the said order and further directed that the respondent should not leave the country without obtaining the permission of the Tribunal.

10.Thus, we are of the view that the Tribunal certainly has powers to pass other types of injunction orders or stay orders apart from what is stated in Section 19(6). ... (emphasis supplied)

10. The above judgment was rendered with reference to the powers of the Tribunals to pass interim orders of stay or injunction in terms of the provisions of sub-section 19(6) prior to amendment Act 1 of 2000, whereby the same power was retained to the Tribunal under Section 19(12) of the Act. In the light of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, the question to be considered is as to whether the Tribunal, in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (25) of Section 19 could pass an order directing the borrower or the guarantor, as the case may be, to surrender his passport and in such event, the direction to surrender the passport would amount to impounding of the passport and further, whether the Tribunal could direct the borrower or the guarantor not to leave the country without permission of the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal.

17. On the other hand, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, the learned senior counsel appearing for the bank would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171. The Division Bench, having referred to the Passport Act as well as the right conferred on the passport holder under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed that there is no infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the event the Tribunal directs the borrower/guarantor to surrender passport. The Division Bench has also held that the power of the Tribunal with reference to the provisions of Section 22 of the RDDBFI Act is wider than a civil Court. For the reasons stated in our order, we are entirely in agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and with great respect, we are not in agreement with the view taken by either the Karnataka High Court or the Delhi High Court.

28. As we have held that both the enactments operate on different field and the powers conferred on the Tribunal to pass interim orders particularly under Section 19(25) of the Act is wide enough to cover the power to pass an order directing the surrender of passport, we hold that the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

29. The provisions of the RDDBFI Act must be interpreted by the Courts to give effect to the object for which such enactment was made. In order to ensure recovery of the dues to the bank, and for that matter such recovery is in the interest of sustained growth of economy of the country, measures like directing surrender of passport and ordering the borrower/guarantor not to leave the country without the permission of the Tribunal would be well within the powers conferred on the Tribunal under Section 19(25) of the RDDBFI Act. Such an order, in our opinion, is sustainable especially in the present case in view of the fact that the application filed by the bank was in respect of recovery of Rs.221,,97,76,635.78p which was due as on 31.12.2009 from the respondent and the respondent also owed more than a sum of Rs.800 crores to various lenders and that there are no assets worth the value available with the borrower. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has miserably failed to take note of the above aspects while setting aside the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.