Debt Recovery Tribunal travel restraint powers are limited; no blanket foreign travel ban without express statutory authority.

A Debt Recovery Tribunal does not have implied authority under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to restrain a borrower or guarantor from travelling abroad or to impound a passport. The Tribunal's interim and procedural powers extend to protecting property, securing recovery, and enforcing compliance, but they do not create a substantive restriction on the right to leave India without express statutory authorisation. A contractual covenant in guarantee deeds was also insufficient where it only restricted departure from India for employment, business, or long-term stay without the bank's permission and did not empower the Tribunal to impose its own travel prohibition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has power under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to restrain a borrower or guarantor from travelling abroad, and whether a contractual covenant in the guarantee deeds could justify such a restriction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confers interim powers to protect property, secure recovery, and regulate procedure, but it does not expressly authorise the Tribunal to impose a general restraint on travel abroad or to impound a passport. The provisions enabling interim orders, general directions, and detention for disobedience were held not to extend to deprivation of the right to leave the country in the absence of enacted law specifically conferring such power. The earlier decisions relied on for broader incidental powers were distinguished, and the consistent view of the Court was followed that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the powers actually conferred by the statute. The contractual clause in the guarantee deeds was also insufficient to sustain the Tribunal's blanket direction, because the covenant was against leaving India for employment, business, or long-term stay abroad without the bank's permission, and did not authorise the Tribunal to substitute its own permission requirement.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restrain the respondents from travelling abroad, and the impugned travel restriction could not be sustained either under the statute or on the basis of the contractual covenant.

Ratio Decidendi: A Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot restrict a borrower or guarantor from travelling abroad unless such power is expressly conferred by statute; general procedural or incidental powers cannot be used to create such a substantive restraint.

---