VINOD RAMNANI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Kiran S Javali appearing for the Petitioners submits that the CBI has already withdrawn the LOC and therefore, the Respondent - Bank is not justified in maintaining its LOC, that comes in the way of his clients traveling abroad. He adds that such a right to travel avails under Article 21 of the Constitution of India vide MANEKA GANDHI vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1978 SC 597. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the CBI does not dispute the recall of LOC, although after investigation, he states, the Charge Sheet is filed against the First Petitioner.

(2.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - Bank vehemently opposes the Petition contending that Petitioners being the borrowers, are due in huge sums of money; recovery proceedings are pending before the DRT; they are not cooperating in these proceedings; therefore, their traveling abroad would prejudice interest of the Bank which in turn is a public interest. He hastens to add that right to travel abroad is not an absolute right and such a right cannot be abused in the sense, that the interest of the creditor is prejudiced.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under inasmuch as, consistent with the sanctity of right to travel abroad, as constitutionally guaranteed, there cannot be LOC issued by the Bank against the alleged debtors, more particularly when the Second Petitioner has nothing to do with the recovery proceedings pending before the DRT nor there is any Charge Sheet filed by the CBI. No law or ruling is cited from the side of Bank which authorizes issuance of LOC of the kind, on the grounds asserted by the learned Panel Counsel. If presence of the debtors is required for recovering the loans given, it is always possible to secure the same by moving appropriate Courts/Authorities/Tribunals.