Dr. Shrikant Bhasi vs Bureau O Immigration, Ministry Of ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 2 Bom

                                                             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





                                                             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

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

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

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

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