Court permits petitioner to travel to the USA amidst fraud allegations, imposing strict conditions.

The Court allowed the petitioner to travel to the USA for a conference, despite the Bank's concerns and allegations of fraud. The Court considered the absence of a current lookout circular, the petitioner's business engagements, and history of the case. Permission was granted subject to stringent conditions, including a fixed deposit, personal bond, and return undertaking. The petitioner was directed to provide detailed travel information and deposit a sum in the Bank's account. The Court ordered Immigration Authorities to facilitate the travel and adjourned the case for further proceedings upon the petitioner's return.

---

---

Issues:
1. Permission to travel abroad
2. Restriction on travel imposed by respondent No.4-Bank
3. Request for lookout circular against the petitioner
4. Financial assistance received from respondent No.4-Bank
5. Proceedings initiated by respondent No.4-Bank for recovery of dues
6. Allegations of fraud and false affidavit against the petitioner
7. Conditions imposed for permitting travel abroad

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought permission to travel to the USA for a conference, stating that he was restricted from traveling to Singapore due to a lookout circular by the Immigration Department. The petitioner, a senior citizen, desired to travel for business purposes and had made previous international trips.

2. Respondent No.4-Bank requested a lookout circular against the petitioner, citing substantial debt owed by the petitioner. The Bank alleged fraudulent behavior by the petitioner, including transferring property to evade debt repayment. The Bank expressed concerns that the petitioner might not return to India if allowed to travel abroad.

3. The Union of India confirmed receiving a request for a lookout circular against the petitioner but had no information on its issuance. The Bank planned to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for filing a false affidavit and potentially leaving India permanently.

4. The petitioner had received financial assistance from respondent No.4-Bank, leading to the account being declared non-performing. Despite attempts to settle the dues, the matter escalated to a decree by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

5. The Court considered the petitioner's travel plans, the nature of his business engagements, and the history of the case. It noted the absence of a current lookout circular and allowed the petitioner to travel abroad between specified dates, subject to stringent conditions.

6. Conditions imposed for travel included furnishing a substantial fixed deposit, a personal bond, and an undertaking to return to India by a specified date. The petitioner was also required to deposit a sum in the Bank's account and provide detailed travel information to the Court and the Bank.

7. The Court granted permission for the petitioner to travel abroad within the specified period, directing the Immigration Authorities to facilitate his travel as per the Court's order. The case was adjourned for further proceedings after the petitioner's return.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the petitioner's request to travel abroad, the Bank's concerns, the request for a lookout circular, the financial background of the case, allegations against the petitioner, and the conditions imposed for permitting travel.

---