TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remain out of India after the said period - That apart, in the present case, the travels sought by the petitioner are not even for luxury but to maintain his livelihood, since he is a sailor by occupation and in the event he does not honour the contract of employment, he may also face financial consequences for that and lose his regular income. Further, in view of the CBI itself having discharged the petitioner from the criminal case initiated against the petitioner along with others, and such order being affirmed in revision, there is no pending allegation of offence under the Indian Penal Code or any penal statue, as contemplated in the Guidelines regarding issuance of Look Out Circulars, which can prevent the petitioner from travell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Mr. Avinash Kankani, Adv. for the UOI Mr. Soumya Roy, Adv. Mr. S. Mahato, Adv. for the respondent no. 3. The Court : The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the writ petitioner being a sailor in merchant vessel and having a contract for 4 (+/-1) months from February 12, 2020 to board a merchant vessel, which contract is annexed at page 29 of the instant writ petition. The petitioner was prevented by the immigration authorities when he sought to leave India on the ground of a Look Out Circular (LOC) having been issued against the petitioner. Although the petitioner has no direct knowledge about the LOC, the petitioner has learnt that the same was issued on the request of the respondent no. 3 Bank. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not seeking to leave the country for pleasure but for his livelihood, as is apparent from the contract of employment as annexed at page 29 of the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner has travelled abroad several times during the pendency of the criminal case itself and has come back to contest the case, which ex facie is sufficient to show the bona fides of the petitioner in that regard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sites certain unreported judgments of different High Courts in support of his contention, being as follows : 1. Bank of Baroda vs. Nimish Kalyabhai Vasa, 2. Dr. Shrikant Bhasi vs. Bureau of Immigration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of his voyage. As such, in the present case there is little or no scope for the petitioner to remain out of India after the said period. That apart, in the present case, the travels sought by the petitioner are not even for luxury but to maintain his livelihood, since he is a sailor by occupation and in the event he does not honour the contract of employment, he may also face financial consequences for that and lose his regular income. It is further seen from the above-referred order of the Division Bench of this Court that the petitioner was permitted to open a separate salary account which would be beyond the pale of the order of attachment. The said direction would be rendered meaningless in the event the petitioner is not all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to leave the country, because the loss of a single rupee also affects the economy of the country and no cut-off line on financial loans can be drawn for the purpose of constituting an economic offence which jeopardizes the interest of the country. To affect the economy interest of the country as a whole as envisaged under the guidelines, the said offence should be of a much greater magnitude, which shakes the economic stability of the country or the finance market of the country or is of such a nature that the banking system of the country is under threat in the event the petitioner leaves the country. In the present case, however, no such high ground has been made out by the Bank for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to prevent the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents are restrained from preventing the petitioner from travelling abroad with effect from tomorrow, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner shall be returning on or before the expiry of 5 months from the date of commencement of his voyage to India and disclosing the contact numbers of the petitioner where the petitioner would be accessible during the period of his travel. A copy of such undertaking shall be served on the learned Advocate on record for the respondents as well. Let the writ petition being WP 105 of 2020 next appear for hearing in the Combined Monthly List of May, 2020. Let a signed copy be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
