Bombay High Court
Prateek Vinod Jatia vs Bureau Of Immigration And 2 Others on 4 September, 2023
Bench: B.P. Colabawalla, M. M. Sathaye
2023:BHC-OS:9473-DB
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2777 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4886 OF 2022
Prateek Vinod Jatia ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home
Affairs And 2 Ors. ...Respondents
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 21551 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4401 OF 2022
Prateek Vinod Jatia ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Bureau Of Immigration Ministry Of Home
Affairs And 2 Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Sernior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sunil A. Humbre &
Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, for Applicant/ Petitioner in both IAs.
Mr. Rajesh Dubey a/w. Ms. Shradha Agarwal, for Respondent
No.2/Indian Overseas Bank in IA/2777/2023.
Mr. Rabindra Hazari, Khozema Mukhtiar, for Respondent No.2/
Punjab National Bank in IA(L)/21551/2023.
Mr. D.P. Singh, for Respondent No.3/U.O.I in both IAs.
Page 1 of 9
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
P. C.
1. Interim Application No. 2777 of 2023 in Writ Petition No.
4886 OF 2022 is filed by the Applicant/Petitioner seeking permission
to travel abroad from 22.09.2023 to 05.10.02023 as per the itinerary
mentioned in para 6 of the said Application. The itinerary discloses that
the Applicant/Petitioner would be travelling to Munich (Germany),
Ibiza (Spain), Naples (Italy) and then back to Munich and thereafter to
Mumbai. The accommodation and contact details [while the Applicant/
Petitioner is abroad], are also set out in the said paragraph. The reason
for seeking this permission is because a Look Out Circular (for short the
"LOC") has been issued against the Applicant/Petitioner at the instance
of Indian Overseas Bank (for short the "IOB"). As far as the Writ
Petition No. 4886 of 2022 is concerned, the LOC issued at the instance
of the IOB along with the Office Memorandum (for short the "OM") are
challenged as being violating of the fundamental right of the Applicant/
Petitioner. That challenge has been heard in a batch of Petitions, (the
above petition being part of that batch), by another Division Bench of
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
this Court and the judgment is reserved. In the interregnum parties
similarly placed like the Applicant/Petitioner have been, in the past,
permitted to travel abroad for business as well as for other purposes.
2. As far as the Interim Application (L) No. 21551 of 2023 in
Writ Petition No. 4401 of 2022 is concerned, the same is also filed by
the Applicant/Petitioner seeking permission to travel abroad to the very
same destinations during the very same period because a LOC has been
issued against the Applicant/Original Petitioner, even by Punjab
National Bank (for short PNB").
3. As far as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IOB
is concerned, he has fairly stated that the Applicant/Petitioner has in
fact entered into an OTS with IOB and has also paid substantial
amounts towards his dues. He, therefore, submitted that considering
the Applicant/Petitioner has been permitted to travel abroad in the past
and he has returned back to India without breaching any of the
conditions imposed upon him, IOB does not take serious objection to
the Applicant/Petitioner travelling abroad, subject to such terms and
conditions being imposed as this Court may deem fit.
4. As far as PNB is concerned, the learned Advocate appearing
on behalf of the PNB vehemently opposed the permission sought by the
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
Applicant/Petitioner. He submitted that in the present case, the dues
owed to PNB [as on November, 2022] are approximately Rs. 452 crores.
The amounts due are from the principal borrower for whom the
Applicant/Petitioner stood as a personal guarantor. Despite such huge
amounts being outstanding, the Bank has been able to recover only
approximately Rs. 14.66 cores by selling the mortgaged property. He
submitted that in such a situation, the Applicant/Petitioner ought not to
be allowed to travel abroad for business or pleasure without paying the
dues of PNB. This apart, he submitted that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the principal borrower (the Corporate
Debtor) is before the NCLT and an Interim Resolution Professional has
already been appointed in relation to the Corporate Debtor. He
submitted that in these proceedings a Forensic Auditor was appointed
and who has opined that there are several related proxy-transactions
under which an amount of Rs.18.10 crores have been siphoned away to
related parties only to defeat the claims of the legitimate creditors. He
submitted that once all this is taken into consideration, this is not a fit
case where the Applicant/Petitioner ought to be allowed to travel, either
for business or pleasure. In the alternate to the above argument, the
learned counsel submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to
allow the Applicant/Petitioner to travel, then a condition may be
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
imposed upon the Applicant/Petitioner that before travelling abroad he
files an affidavit in this court disclosing his all unencumbered assets so
that PNB would be in a position to take appropriate action for recovery
of its dues.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some
length. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in both the
Interim Applications. As far as the LOC issued at the instance of IOB is
concerned, there is no real dispute. In fact, as recorded earlier, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IOB has a very taken
reasonable stand stating that the Applicant/Petitioner can be permitted
to travel abroad subject to the usual terms and conditions being
imposed by this Court for his travel in the past.
6. Therefore, the only thing left to be considered now is the
objections raised by the learned counsel for PNB. As far as these are
concerned, we are of the view that the larger issue of challenge to the
LOC as well as to the OM is heard by this Court and judgment is
reserved. Considering the Applicant/Petitioner has been permitted to
travel abroad in the past, we do not think that the objections raised by
PNB should detain us from allowing him permission. We say this
because all of these objections have been raised by PNB in its affidavit
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
dated 21.11.2022 filed in reply to the main petition. Despite this, in
the past, this Court has, by its Order dated 05.01.2023
passed in IA(L)/39224/2022 in WP/4401/2022 permitted the
Applicant/Petitioner to travel to Doha to attend the wedding. This order
is Exhibit D-1 of IA(L)/21551/2023. Thereafter, even by Order dated
27.02.2023 (passed in IA/778/2023 in WP/4401/2022), the Petitioner
was allowed to travel to Dubai from 02.03.2023 to 10.03.2023. When
one looks at all this material, and keeps in mind that it is well-settled
that the right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we are unable to agree with
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of PNB that the
Applicant/Petitioner ought not to be allowed to travel.
7. As far as imposing the condition regarding the
Applicant/Petitioner disclosing unencumbered assets on oath is
concerned, we find that PNB has already filed an Original Application
before the DRT for recovery of its dues. In that Original Application,
PNB has also filed an Interim Application seeking an order of disclosure
from the Applicant/Petitioner. Once this is a case, we do not think it
would be necessary or prudent for us to impose such a condition on the
Applicant/Petitioner.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
8. In these circumstances, taking an overall view of the
matter, we permit the Applicant/Petitioner to travel to Munich
(Germany), Ibiza (Spain), Naples (Italy) between 22.09.2023 to
05.10.2023, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Applicant/Petitioner shall file an undertaking in this
Court stating that he will strictly adhere to the itinerary
mentioned in paragraph 6 of both the Interim Applications.
This affidavit shall also clearly state that the
Applicant/Petitioner shall return back to India on or before
06.10.2023.
(b) The Applicant/Petitioner shall also file an undertaking not
to apply for renewal or extension of this order until he
returns back to India. These undertakings shall be served
upon Advocates for both the Banks before departure.
(c) Within one week of returning to India, namely, within one
week from 06.10.2023, the Applicant/Petitioner shall file
an affidavit explaining the business meetings he held and
with whom, together with the contact details of the persons
he met and the details of the business he was able to
generate, if any. Further, in the very same affidavit, the
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
Applicant/Petitioner shall also disclose on oath the monies
expended on this trip and the sources from which the
monies were expended. The reason we have imposed this
condition is because substantial monies are owed to the
IOB and PNB and it would be only fair that these
disclosures are made once the Applicant/Petitioner returns
back to India.
9. Subject to the above conditions, the impugned LOC issued
at the instance of IOB as well as PNB shall remain suspended till
06.10.2023. We make it clear that this order only applies to the LOCs
issued at the instance of IOB and PNB. It does not cover any other LOC
or restraint order passed by any other agency/Bank.
10. The immigration authorities at all ports of departure
including all airports shall permit the Applicant/Petitioner passage and
allow him to take his flights out of the country irrespective of whether
IOB and/or PNB have notified them or not, and irrespective of whether
this suspension is noted in the immigration authorities' system or not.
11. The immigration authorities will not insist upon a certified
copy of this order but will act on presentation of an authenticated or
digitally signed copy of this order.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
10 IA-2777-2023 and 12 IA(L)-21551-2023.doc
12. Both the above Interim Applications are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by
fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ M.M. SATHAYE, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
Husen
Signed by: Husen Nadaf
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/09/2023 18:55:50
