- In Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta vs Bank of India, the Bombay High Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) does not have authority to restrain a citizen from travelling abroad as there is no provision under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 that empowers it to do so.
- A Division Bench comprising Justices AS Chandurkar and Justice Amit Borkar held that a citizen's right to travel forms part of his personal liberty as given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- In order to deprive a person of such right, a provision must be given under the Act and in its absence the DRT cannot take actions to violate a person's fundamental right.
- Consequently, the bench set aside the order passed by the DRT and permitted the petitioner to travel to Turkey for a family function.
- The Court also observed that the DRT is not empowered to exceed its powers given by the CPC to ensure natural justice as given under section 22 of the Act which confers the procedural right to properly regulate proceedings before it.
- The Court also took note of subsections 12, 13(A), 17 and 18 of Section 19, which entitles the tribunal to pass such orders as are necessary to give effect to its orders and prevent abuse of its process to secure the ends of justice.
- In the present case, Anurag Gupta, a businessman, moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the DRT's order rejecting his application to travel.
- In 2018, a liquidation order was passed against Gupta under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and subsequently, he was restrained from travelling abroad.
- The petitioner approached the DRT last month to reconsider the retraining order, however, it was denied.
- The petitioner contented before the Hon'ble High Court that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right given under Article 21 and duly recognised by the Apex Court. Hence, the order of DRT is unconstitutional.
- The contention of the defendants was that the DRT had wide powers to meet the end of natural justice and the order was passed in furtherance of this power.
- The Ld. Court took note of the contentions raised by both the parties and came to the conclusion that the order of the DRT was violative of the petitioner's fundamental right.
- Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to travel abroad.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha Nautiyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
