BANK OF BARODA Vs. NIMISH KALYANBHAI VASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is submitted by the original respondent No.4 Bank of Baroda for challenging the correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge on 17.10.2019.

(2.) The substantial question raised by the appellant Bank is that despite the fact that there are recovery proceedings pending against the respondent No.1 to the tune of decretal dues of more than 98 crores and despite the fact that the lookout circular is in operation, the original petitioner is permitted to travel abroad.

(3.) For substantiating this grievance, learned counsel Ms. Nalini S. Lodha appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank has submitted that there is a huge decretal amount outstanding payable by the respondent No.1 and execution proceedings are pending and if the respondent No.1 will be allowed to travel abroad, it would be difficult for the bank to secure his presence and not only that but the same would be in violation of the lookout circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Learned counsel has further submitted that apart from this, the conduct of the original petitioner is such that he provided a false information and declaration about his assets which are reflecting on page 213 of the petition compilation and by pointing out the incorrect information, which has been submitted by respondent No.1, a submission is made that learned Single Judge ought not to have granted permission. It has further been emphatically stated by learned counsel for the bank that though the respondent No.1 is one of the Directors of the company, has chosen to declare that practically, he is living a retirement life and is earning nearly an amount of Rs.2,25,120/- and by giving such kind of false information, an attempt is made to misdirect the Court. It has further been submitted that moment, the lookout circular is applicable to the respondent No.1, he cannot be permitted to travel beyond the country and as the said fact having not been properly appreciated by learned Single Judge, the order in question deserves to be corrected. Ms. Lodha has further submitted that on previous occasion, when this Court permitted the respondent No.1 to travel abroad, at that point of time, there was no such lookout circular brought to the notice but this time, the lookout circular has already been issued specifically naming the respondent No.1 and as such, it is not open for the respondent No.1 to move away from the country. That aspect having not been properly appreciated by learned Single Judge, the order deserves correction.