Look Out Circular cannot enforce a prospective liability without an existing monetary order; personal liberty prevails.

A Look Out Circular cannot be maintained merely on a bank's apprehension that a person may leave India, where no existing monetary award or order has been passed by a competent forum. The Court held that such a circular cannot be used to secure or enforce a prospective liability before adjudication, and matters like alleged wilful default must be raised before the forum deciding liability. In the absence of any subsisting monetary order, continuation of the circular would be an unwarranted restraint on personal liberty and unnecessary harassment. The Look Out Circular was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner could be sustained in the absence of any existing monetary award or order by a competent judicial forum, notwithstanding the bank's apprehension that she may leave India and not return.

Analysis: The petitioner had earlier travelled abroad on several occasions and had returned to India. The Court found that a Look Out Circular cannot be used as a means to secure or enforce a prospective award before any competent forum has actually adjudicated and passed such an award. Although the petitioner had been described as a wilful defaulter and the bank could raise its contentions in appropriate proceedings, those matters belonged to the forum that may ultimately decide the liability. In the absence of any subsisting monetary order against the petitioner, continuation of the Look Out Circular would amount to unnecessary harassment and an unwarranted fetter on her personal liberty.

Conclusion: The Look Out Circular could not be sustained and was quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---