Case Title:
Anurag Vs. Bank of India
Date:
07.06.2022.
Bench:
Justice Amit Borkar
Justice A.S Chandurkar
Parties:
Petitioner – Anurag
Respondent – Bank of India
Subject
A Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the DRT refusing to grant permission to travel abroad to attend the wedding of his sister-in-law.
Important Provisions
Article 14– Equality before law.
Article 21 – Right to life.
Overview
- The petitioner was a personal guarantor of a private limited company engaged in electricity and power generation.
- The establishment of the power plant was a consortium led by Axis Bank Limited, L&T Infrastructure Finance, State Bank of Mysore, Corporation Bank, State Bank of India and Respondent No.1.
- Proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are pending in relation to the respondent No.2 – Company before NCLT, Mumbai and the same is under liquidation order passed by the NCLT dated 15.03.2018.
- An application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, for recovery of amount of Rs. 110,15,00,000/-.
- The respondent Bank sought interim relief restraining the petitioner from travelling abroad and for impounding his passport.
- The petitioner filed an application with the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking permission to travel to Turkey to attend sister-in-law’s wedding.
- The application was rejected.
- Therefore, the petitioner in this current petition wants to challenge the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Issues raised
Whether DRT had the power to restrain the petitioners right to travel abroad?
Advancements made by the Petitioner
- The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the right to travel abroad was recognised as the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- A person could not be deprived of his personal liberty in the absence of specific ‘enacted law’.
- The tribunal does not confer power to restrain a person from travelling abroad.
- The learned counsel relied upon the case of State Bank of India Vs. Prafulchandra, SCC Online Guj.1055, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Kapil Puri and Ors., 2017 SCC online Del. 7377 and Satish Chandra Vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online SC 2048 to convey the same.
Advancements made by the Respondent
- The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the tribunal was vested with the powers of Civil Court under CPC.
- Section 19(25) of the said act and Rule 18 of DRT stated that the tribunal had the power orders to prevent abuse of its process.
- The learned counsel relied upon Smt. Annai Jayabharathi Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and Anr. reported in AIR 2005 Kerala 137 and ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Debts Recovery 7/22 WP.2826.22-J.F.odt Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Ors. Reported in AIR 2012 Madras 111 to convey the same.
Judgment Analysis
- The Court considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India which stated that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
- The right to travel abroad and return to the country without impediment is present in the expression of ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi, reported in 1967 AIR 1836 had stated that the right to travel abroad was a fundamental right.
- The Hon'ble Apex Court,in the case of Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India and Ors in Civil Appeal No.3802/2019 stated the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right as it was a self-determining creative character of the individual.
- On careful consideration of the language of Sub Section 12, 13(A), 17 and 18 of Section 19, it was stated that the Tribunal is not conferred with specific power to restrain a person from leaving the country.
- The Debt Recovery Tribunal had no power to restrain a citizen from travelling abroad, particularly when the said right was recognised as Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by stating that the order refusing permission to travel abroad was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Debt Recovery Tribunal had no authority to restrain a person from travelling abroad in the absence of specific powers to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner was granted permission to travel to turkey from 09/06/2022 to 17/06/2022.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement.
