Mr. Bellam Ravichandra, vs Union Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 5160 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                       MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.13298 of 2022
                                       PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No      DATE                              ORDER                              Office Note
        16.08.2022   RRR, J

                                        I.A.No.2 of 2022

                           The petitioner is the holder of passport
                     bearing No.Z4187739, which expires on 04.01.2028.
                     The petitioner is also a Director in a company known
                     as   M/s. B.K.     Threshers    Private   Limited. This
                     company had obtained financial assistance from
                     various Banks including respondents 1 and 2. The

loan accounts of this company had been categorised as non-performing assets by respondents 1 and 2. Subsequently, it appears that respondents 1 and 2 had also filed criminal complaints against the said company as well as the Directors of the company on account of non-recovery of the loans granted by respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that the said company and its directors had committed fraud in obtaining the loans and in not paying the loans.

The petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition, with the contention that he was not being allowed to travel to the United States of America to meet his daughter, in view of the lookout notice issued against him by the 5th respondent on the instructions of the 4th respondent. The petitioner had taken the stand that his daughter, who was pursuing studies in United States of America, had fallen sick and that his presence is required to ensure proper medical treatment.

This Court, by order dated 12.05.2022, had directed respondents to consider the request of the petitioner at the earliest. However, the 4th respondent did not take any decision in the matter

and the petitioner was unable to travel to the United States of America.

The petitioner has now filed the present application for fresh permission to visit United Arab Emirates and more specifically Dubai for business purpose. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has received an invitation to visit Dubai for the purpose of conducting negotiations with a company situated in Dubai. This invitation dated 27.07.2022 required the petitioner to travel to Dubai from 21.08.2022 to 24.08.2022. The petitioner has filed the present application for permission to travel to Dubai.

It is the contention of the petitioner that W.P.Nos.15994 & 15995 of 2022 had been filed challenging the F.I.R filed against the writ petitioner and others in the complaint filed by respondents 1 and 2 against M/s. B.K. Threshers Private Limited and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.06.2022 had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the criminal complaint filed by the Bank is actually a civil suit which is now being converted into a criminal case. He submits that no criminality was attached to the conduct of the petitioner and it is only on account of the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner, the proceedings are still pending. He would further submit that the said company had already cleared the dues of about Rs.87 crores to M/s.Union Bank of India in full and final settlement of its dues under an OTS scheme. He further submits that respondents 1 and 2 have also granted an OTS scheme to the said company to repay the entire dues of the company

by paying an amount of Rs.130 crores by way of seven installements. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the certificate, dated 29.07.2022, issued by respondents 1 and 2, stating that M/s. B.K. Threshers Private Limited had not defaulted in any of the instalments payable till now and that a sum of Rs.38 crores has already been paid.

Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, would also submit that the petitioner has extensive business transactions abroad and is required to travel frequently to various countries including countries in Europe and Asia for his business purposes. He would point out to the copy of the passport of the petitioner filed before this Court, to contend that the petitioner, until the outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic, had travelled extensively across the world and had always returned back to India. He submits that the petitioner has extensive business interests and assets in India and is not a flight risk.

In these circumstances, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel contends that permitting the petitioner to go abroad for a period of three days would not in any manner imperil the investigation that is said to be conducted by the respondents and further the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has already stayed all coercive steps would mean that the petitioner cannot be prohibited from travelling abroad. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D.

Ramarathnam1; Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Anr.,2; and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and Ors.,3 to contend that the

(1967) 3 SCR 525

(1978) 1 SCC 248

(2019) SCC OnLine SC 2048)

petitioner has a fundamental right to travel anywhere in the world and the same cannot be restricted on account of a criminal complaint being filed against the petitioner.

Sri G.L.V. Ramana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner was an active member of the company, viz., M/s. B.K. Threshers Private Limited, and his presence is necessary for a proper investigation to be carried out in the complaint filed by respondents 1 and 2. He would further submit that the petitioner cannot be permitted to leave India as it would be extremely difficult for law enforcement to ensure his presence in India after he leaves the territory of India.

The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 3 to 6 would submit that the petitioner cannot be permitted to leave India as it would be extremely difficult to bring him back in the event of the petitioner absconding thereafter.

In view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court had, by order dated 22.06.2022 in W.P.Nos.15994 & 15995 of 2022, directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, the question of arresting the petitioner during the pendency of these orders, would not arise. Further, in view of the said order, it cannot be said that a clear cut case is made out against the petitioner in terms of the complaints filed by respondents 1 and 2 at this stage. In any event, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited above, had upheld the principle that the right to travel is part of the fundamental right of life and liberty as enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the circumstances, keeping in view the

factors mentioned above, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to leave India for a period of three (3) days for the purpose of visiting Dubai, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall travel directly from India to Dubai and return back to India between 21.08.2022 to 24.08.2022.

2. The petitioner shall not stay outside India beyond 24.08.2022.

3. Respondents 4 to 6 shall permit the petitioner to leave India without reference to the lookout notice already issued against the petitioner.

4. The said lookout notice shall again come into effect immediately after the petitioner return to India by 24.08.2022.

5. The petitioner shall also execute a personal bond for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) to be submitted to the 1st respondent assuring the 1st respondent that he would return to India by 24.08.2022, failing which the said bond may be enforced.

_________ RRR, J Js.

Issue C.C. today