502.NMWL493.19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 493 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2351 OF 2019
Dr. Shrikant Bhasi ... Applicant
In the matter between :
Dr. Shrikant Bhasi ... Petitioner
Vs
1 Bureau of Immigration & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. K.H. Halai with Mr. P. Ranjan i/b Halai & Co. for the
Petitioner/Applicant.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior advocate, with Mr. Madhav Kanoria, Ms.
Saloni Kapadia and Mr. Anush Mathkar i/b Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
THURSDAY, 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. :
1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition and on 21 st August, 2019. Upon its admission, an interim order was passed.
2 Today, the Notice of Motion has been moved as the
SRP 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2019 00:02:45 :::
502.NMWL493.19.doc
petitioner feels that the order of this Court in the writ petition gives him a limited protection. That only allows him to undertake one journey abroad. Now, he has to go again and, therefore, he has sought permission of this Court to travel abroad, but in the Notice of Motion, we find that the prayers are too wide and to be granted at this stage.
3 By prayer clause (a), the petitioner desires a blanket stay of the operation and implementation of the Lookout Circular. That is under challenge in the writ petition. We do not think that prayer clause (a) can be granted at this stage. 4 Then, prayer clause (b) is the other prayer and by which the petitioner says that he be allowed to travel abroad for business purposes and visit the countries set out in details in the affidavit-in-support from 20th September, 2019, till 21st October, 2019.
5 Since the applicant's advocate mentioned this matter yesterday evening and stated that the application will be moved, but should be placed today i.e. 19 th September, 2019, as the SRP 2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2019 00:02:45 :::
502.NMWL493.19.doc journey of the petitioner is to commence from tomorrow i.e. 20 th September, 2019, we took up this application out of turn. 6 On this application, the contesting respondent - State Bank of India is present. Mr. R.M. Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent bank would submit that in the garb of seeking permission to travel abroad, the applicant-petitioner has virtually set at naught the Circular as also the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh. They are pending and the bank has to recover a huge sum with interest from the petitioner-applicant. If the relief in terms of this application is granted and the petitioner-applicant does not return, the bank's dues would be in total jeopardy. Presently, there are no details provided of the assets and properties of the applicant in India and which could be proceeded against by the bank. 7 We see some substance in the apprehension of Mr. Kadam. In the petitioner's present petition and the request that we are considering, we cannot call upon him to provide details of his assets and liabilities so also the movable and immovable SRP 3/6 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2019 00:02:45 :::
502.NMWL493.19.doc properties belonging to him. The bank is at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in the pending Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur. 8 We are also in agreement with Mr. Kadam that such permission being sought from this Court, without complete details of the journey, would mean that there is no assurance or guarantee that the petitioner would return to India. 9 We have also been disturbed by the fact that though the proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur, through this petition, the petitioner secures not only a leave to travel abroad, to return his Passport, but directions to the competent authorities to grant him a particular visa so as to enable him to strike business deals abroad. 10 The petitioner may have a point with regard to the legality and validity of the Lookout Circular. He would have a point to urge before this Court that such Lookout Notices and Circulars cannot be issued in purely civil proceedings on the application made by the banks and refusing the leave to travel SRP 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2019 00:02:45 :::
502.NMWL493.19.doc abroad. Today, the position is that the DRT, Jabalpur is seized of the Original Application of the bank. That is stated to be pending. In the Original Application No.107 of 2019, pending before the DRT at Jabalpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the applicant can make the necessary requests and that Tribunal would duly consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Should those orders be not to the satisfaction of the petitioner- applicant, it is always open for him to challenge the same in appropriate legal proceedings before the legal forums and courts in Madhya Pradesh. We do not think that the said Tribunal at Jabalpur would be averse to considering all submissions of the parties, including the objections of the petitioner-applicant to the maintainability of the request made by the bank and the restraint that it seeks to place on him. All contentions in that regard can very well be raised in appropriate applications before the Tribunal.
11 It is only because the travel has to commence from tomorrow and that the applicant has moved this application at the last minute that we grant him leave to travel abroad. That is to fulfill his commitments and the statements made in the SRP 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2019 00:02:45 :::
502.NMWL493.19.doc affidavit on oath are accepted as undertakings to this Court. It is stated that the petitioner-applicant will fly out of India on 22 nd September, 2019 and return by 21st October, 2019. 12 Though the applicant has set out at Exhibit-A, the itinerary and addresses in Singapore and in Dubai and has also provided the contact numbers, that the petitioner-applicant shall strictly abide by this schedule and return to India by 21 st October, 2019. The conditions imposed by this Court in its earlier order on 21st August, 2019, would continue to bind the petitioner- applicant.
13 The applications of the petitioner-applicant before this Court seeking leave to travel abroad having been granted does not mean that the Tribunal at Jabalpur is bound by the order and directions. The contentions of the parties are kept open. 14 The Notice of Motion, accordingly, stands disposed of. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
G.S. PATEL, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
SRP 6/6
::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2019 00:02:45 :::