TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to explain on what security the Banks permitted such large exposure. The answer given was, the Companies to which loans are advanced were 'listed companies' in London Stock Exchange and the share value had shown that the said Companies had high net worth. Tangible assets, if any, mortgaged in favour of Banks and their valuation is not forthcoming. If Public Sector Banks are permitting such large exposure without adequate securities, it is a matter of great concern and it shall have serious adverse impact on the economy of this Country. It is time, the law makers and Reserve Bank of India re-visit the lending guidelines and the procedures and take necessary remedial measures to ensure that public money is well secured before disbursement. In view of the liberty available to the petitioner to approach the Bank authorities and explain that LOCs have been wrongly issued, petitioner is not entitled for relief in these writ petitions. Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION No.15032 OF 2020 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.13862 OF 2020 (GM-PASS) IN W.P.15032 OF 2020, IN W.P.13862 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2021 - THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR For the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution of India Annexure- A . d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the actions of the Respondent No.1 and 2 in issuing an endorsement of cancellation in passport of the Petitioner dated 14.11.2020 by Respondent No.2 and not permitting the Petitioner to travel from Bengaluru to Abu Dhabi, UAE (Anneuxre-B) is highly arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law and is in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. e. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to travel from Bengaluru to Abu Dhabi, UAE, under such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in accordance with law. f. Grant costs of the proceedings; and grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity. 4. It is averred in the writ petitions that petitioner has promoted several companies in pharmaceutical, hospitality, healthcare and foreign exchange businesses. He stepped down from the Management and handed over the companies to the respective Officers between 2015 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. Petitioner does not fall under any such category; Petitioner is required to travel (a) to defend cases filed against him in UAE; (b) to settle disputes and clear his name; (c) to help investigation of complaints filed by petitioner who is a victim of fraud; and (d) to carry on his work for his livelihood, as he ordinarily resides in UAE. 10. Thus, in substance, Shri. Shashikiran Shetty has argued that petitioner is only a guarantor . He ordinarily resides in UAE. Loans were disbursed in UAE. He has a fundamental right to travel. 11. Petitions are opposed by both BOB and PNB. 12. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 13. Undisputed facts of the case are, BOB has lent about Rs.2,000 Crores and exposure of PNB is Rs.800 Crores. Petitioner is an Indian National. He claims that he ordinarily resides in the UAE. It is the admitted case of petitioner that the Companies in question were promoted by him and he was in-charge of them till he stepped down from the Managements between 2015 and 2017. It is also the admitted case of petitioner that default has occurred due to mismanagement of Companies by the present CEOs and CFOs. 14. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrongly issued against him . LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned. d) LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts' jurisdiction in affirming or canceling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs. (Emphasis supplied) 18. Thus, Clause(c) of paragraph No.7 gives liberty for a person against whom LOC is issued, to approach the officer who has ordered issuance of LOC and explain that it is wrongly issued against him. In the letter written by the Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration, it is stated that the LOCs have been issued at the behest of BOB and PNB. Therefore, petitioner has to first approach the Bank Authorities. Hence, a direction to provide a copy is unnecessary. 19. The next prayer is to declare issuance of LOC without prior notice as illegal and violative Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On the face of it, the prayer is misconceived because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Maneka Gandhi, based on the majority view, the full Court, in view of the statement made by the learned Attorney General, did not interfere with the order impugned therein. 27. Placing reliance on paragraph No.66 in Mardia Chemicals Ltd and Others. Vs. Union of India and Others (2004)4 SCC 311 ,he argued that economy of the Country cannot be ignored purely restricting it to individual transactions. 28. Though Shri. Shashikiran Shetty contended that the right of petitioner to travel is paramount, in the facts of this case, it is relevant to note that petitioner is liable for repayment of about Rs.2800 Crores lent by Public Sector Banks. Undoubtedly, this money belongs to this Country in general and the depositors in particular. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that money belonging to this Country has been utilized by the petitioner in a foreign country to run his businesses. No material is produced to show that money lent by BOB and PNB has resulted in any development of this country. On the other hand, as on date, it has become a bad debt and public sector banks are fighting litigations in India as also in UAE to recover the same. It is no doubt true that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987 SC 1078] and SBI v. Indexport Registered [(1992) 3 SCC 159 : AIR 1992 SC 1740] .) 31. In Central Bank of India Vs. C.L. Vimala (2015)7 SCC 337 the Apex Court has reiterated the opinion in Ram Kishun as follows: 13. We are of the opinion that the questions that need to be decided by us are regarding the liability of the guarantor under Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872. The legislature has succinctly stated that the liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. This Court has decided on this question, time and again, in line with the intent of the legislature. In Ram Kishun v. State of U.P. [(2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382] , this Court has held that: (SCC p. 518, para 10) 10. in view of the provisions of Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter called the Contract Act ), the liability of the guarantor/surety is co-extensive with that of the debtor. (emphasis supplied) The only exception to the nature of the liability of the guarantor is provided in the section itself, which is only if it stated explicitly to be otherwise in the contract. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
