Allowed

Sandeep Mahendra Shah v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2024IA/965/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court permitted the applicant to travel to Dubai for business despite a Look Out Circular issued by the respondent bank. The Look Out Circular was suspended until 6 February 2024, subject to strict undertakings regarding his return and a report on business engagements upon his return.

What did the court decide?

The Look Out Circular issued at the instance of Bank of Baroda against the applicant is suspended until 6 February 2024; passage by immigration authorities is permitted.

Sandeep Mahendra Shah Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

8-ASIA-965-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 965 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2024

¶6

Sandeep Mahendra Shah .. Applicant

¶7

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶8

Sandeep Mahendra Shah .. Applicant/Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Bank of Baroda & Ors. .. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Hasan Sayyed, i/b Bhagyashree Keny, Advocates for the Applicant/Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Nishit Dhruva, a/w Niyati Merchant, Yash Dhruva, Harsh Sheth & Darshit Rupda , Advocatesfor Respondent No.1.

¶13

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2024

¶14

P. C.

¶15

This Interim Application is filed by the

¶16

Digitally signed byASHWINI ASHWINIJANARDAN JANARDANVALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date: 2024.01.29 19:46:09 +0530

¶17

Applicant/Petitioner seeking permission to travel to Dubai, UAE from 31^st January 2024 to 5^th February 2024 for the business purposes. This Interim Application is necessitated because a Look Out Circular has Page 1 of 6 JANUARY 29, 2024

¶18

Ashwini Vallakati

¶19

8-ASIA-965-2024.doc

¶20

been issued against the Applicant/Petitioner at the instance of Bank of Baroda, and which circular is also assailed in the above Writ Petition.

¶21

Mr. Sayyed, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner submitted that there are no criminal proceedings that have been initiated or pending against the Applicant/Petitioner. Further, even though large amounts are claimed by Bank of Baroda, the Applicant/Petitioner has till date, to the best of his knowledge, not even been declared as a willful defaulter. He submitted that the Applicant/Petitioner has been residing in Mumbai for the last thirty years and also has family including his wife and three daughters. He also has business interest in India. He, therefore, submitted that even otherwise the Applicant/Petitioner is not at any flight risk and undertakes to return back to India on such date as this Court may deem fit. Considering that right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he submitted that the Applicant/Petitioner be allowed to travel to Dubai, UAE for business purposes from 31^st January 2024 to 5^th February 2024 subject to such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit.

¶22

Page 2 of 6 JANUARY 29, 2024

¶23

Ashwini Vallakati

¶24

8-ASIA-965-2024.doc

¶25

On the other hand, the Mr. Dhruva, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank of Baroda vehemently opposed the grant of any travel permission. He submitted that approximately Rs. 362 Crores is due and payable by the principal borrower and for which, the Applicant/Petitioner has stood as a guarantor. He submitted that until these dues are either paid or adequately secured, no permission ought to be granted to the Applicant/Petitioner to travel abroad.

¶26

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Interim Application as well as in the above Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the issues raised in the above Writ Petition have already been heard by another Division Bench of this Court (in a bunch of other Writ petitions) and the Judgment is reserved. It is also not in dispute that in the interregnum, parties like the Applicant/Petitioner have been permitted to travel abroad for business as well as personal reasons. However, considering that the Applicant/Petitioner is traveling for the first time after the issuance of a LOC, we permit him to travel to Dubai, UAE subject to the following terms and conditions.

¶27

Page 3 of 6 JANUARY 29, 2024

¶28

Ashwini Vallakati

¶29

8-ASIA-965-2024.doc

¶30

(a) The wife and major daughter of the Applicant/Petitioner shall file an affidavit in this Court undertake therein that they shall not travel out of the Country until the Applicant/Petitioner returns back to India.

¶31

(b) The Applicant/Petitioner shall file an undertaking in this Court that he shall strictly adhere to the itinerary more particularly set out at Exhibit “A” of the Interim Application and that he shall return back to India on or before 6^th February 2024. In this undertaking, the Applicant/Petitioner shall also disclose the place where he is going to stay in Dubai, UAE along with all other contact details.

¶32

(c) The Applicant/Petitioner shall also file an undertaking stating that he will not apply for renewal or extension of this order until he returns back to India.

¶33

(d) The above referred affidavit as well as the above referred undertakings shall be served on the Advocates for Bank of Baroda before the date of departure.

¶34

(e) Since the Applicant/Petitioner is traveling for business purposes, within 1 week of returning to India, namely, within 1 week from 6^th February 2024, the Applicant/Petitioner shall file a separate affidavit setting out the business meetings he held and with whom, together with the contact details of the persons he met and the business he was able to generate, if any. This affidavit shall

¶35

Page 4 of 6 JANUARY 29, 2024

¶36

Ashwini Vallakati

¶37

8-ASIA-965-2024.doc

¶38

also set out the expenses incurred by him during the above travel and the source/s of income used for funding the said expenses. This affidavit shall also be served on the Advocates for Bank of Baroda within 1 week from 6^th February 2024.

¶39

Subject to above conditions, the Look Out Circular issued at the instance of Bank of Baroda against the Applicant/Petitioner is suspended upto 6^th February 2024. It is clarified that this order does not apply to any other Look Out Circular and/or restraint order, if any, issued by any other Authority/Agency/Court/Bank.

¶40

The immigration authorities at all ports of departure, including all airports, will permit the Applicant/Petitioner passage and permit the Applicant/Petitioner to take his flights out of the country irrespective of whether Bank of Baroda have notified them or not and irrespective of whether this suspension is noted in the immigration authorities' systems or otherwise.

¶41

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.

¶42

Page 5 of 6 JANUARY 29, 2024

¶43

Ashwini Vallakati

¶44

8-ASIA-965-2024.doc

¶45

The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶46

terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

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.

¶48

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶49

Page 6 of 6 JANUARY 29, 2024

¶50

Ashwini Vallakati

Sandeep Mahendra Shah v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Mahendra Shah v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sejal Yogesh Nirgude @ Sejal Dattatrey Shinde Vs Mr. Yogesh Suresh Nirgude

Mr. Jayesh Chandrakant Gadkari Vs Mrs. Manisha Jayesh Gadkari @ Manisha Dattatray Gurav

Mrs. Kaveri W/O Kunal Rao Vs Kunal S/O Purushottam Rao

Indian Bank (E-Allahabad Bank) vs the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ii, Mumbai

Sony Mony Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Asset Care and Reconstrcution Enterprises and Anr.

Rajiv Kabir Hiranandani vs Namrata Zakaria