TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the DRT award obtained by the Bank against the borrower- Company and the attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA at the instance of the ED relating to the writ petitioner's movable and immovable properties - in the present case, the LOC would not only amount to curtailing the fundamental right to liberty of the petitioner, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India, it would also take away the livelihood of the petitioner which would directly affect his life, also guaranteed by the Constitution. Neither the LOC nor the request therefor discloses any ground as envisaged in the relevant Office Memoranda to justify the issuance of the LOC and/or the subsequent renewal thereof. The petitioner has successfully demonstrated that he was not a Director of the Company at the relevant juncture when the borrower- company is alleged to have committed fraud. Thus, there is no basis whatsoever for issuance of the impugned LOC and the consequential subsequent extension thereof against the petitioner - Petition is allowed. - WPO No. 105 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2021 - The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya For the Petitioner : M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision Bench order of April 22, 2019, granting the petitioner liberty to open a fresh bank account for credit of his salary for the maintenance of his family and himself. 7. Subsequently, the Immigration Authorities opened the impugned LOC on the basis of a request of the SBI dated January 17, 2020. The writ petitioner was detained at the Kolkata Airport on February 11, 2020, when the petitioner was going to take a flight to Bangkok for boarding a merchant vessel as Captain. 8. The reason for opening LOC, as discussed in the LOC itself as well as the request of the Bank is that the writ petitioner is a Director of KGLL, which had been identified to have committed fraud, by the Bank, on March 7, 2014. The petitioner argues that neither the LOC nor the request for it was furnished to the writ petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and, in the present case, the livelihood of the petitioner, who is a sailor, depends on overseas travel. 10. It is also contended that Section 10A of the Passports Act, 1967 is the only statute empowering the Central Government to suspend a passport or restrict overseas trav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not justify how the travel of the petitioner would in any manner prejudice the economic interests of the country. 18. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner next places reliance on an unreported judgment of the Gujarat High Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 15328 of 2019 (Nimish Kalyanbhai Vasa Vs. Union of India) and argues that in view of the petitioner therein having suffered a decree as guarantor to the principal borrower-Company and the petitioner had on several occasions travelled out of India, the Court proceeded on the presumption that no Look-Out Circular existed as on the relevant date. 19. Learned counsel next relies on UCO Bank Vs. Dr. Siten Saha Roy and others, rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in RVW 23 of 2020, in connection with WP No. 23412(W) of 2012, wherein it was held, inter alia, that the economic interests of India could not be ascertained merely on the quantum of loan and is on a much higher footing, directly and adversely impacting the share market or the economy of the country as a whole, which would be jeopardized in the event the accused is permitted to travel abroad, to such an extent that it destabilizes the entire ec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, let alone any document disclosed by the Bank, to exhibit that the petitioner was a guarantor at the relevant point of time. Thus, even in the absence of any specific denial to such vague allegation, the issuance of the LOC and its subsequent renewal cannot be justified. 28. Economic offence or any other ground contemplated in the relevant Office Memoranda was not disclosed either in the request of the Bank or the LOC itself to justify the issuance thereof. Apart from the CBI Court and Sessions Court having given a clean chit to the petitioner on similar allegations, the loan-in-question is sufficiently secured in view of the DRT award obtained by the Bank against the borrower- Company and the attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA at the instance of the ED relating to the writ petitioner's movable and immovable properties. 29. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner earns his livelihood as a sailor, being the Captain of the Merchant Navy, an integral part of which is overseas travel on the high seas for the major part of the year. Hence, in the present case, the LOC would not only amount to curtailing the fundamental right to lib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iently protected by the award passed against the borrower-company by the DRT as well as the order of attachment of the petitioner's property, both movable and immovable, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA at the instance of the ED. 36. The petitioner has successfully demonstrated that he was not a Director of the Company at the relevant juncture when the borrower- company is alleged to have committed fraud. Thus, there is no basis whatsoever for issuance of the impugned LOC and the consequential subsequent extension thereof against the petitioner. 37. Neither the grounds mentioned in the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on December 5, 2017, nor the Circular dated October 27, 2010, which was amended by the 2017 Memorandum, are applicable in the present case to justify issuance and renewal of the LOC against the writ petitioner. 38. In view of the reasons set forth above, WPO No.105 of 2020 is allowed on contest, thereby quashing the Look-Out Circular and the subsequent extension thereof, issued against the writ petitioner. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall take immediate steps for circulation of this Order to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
