<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (10) TMI 1084 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801141</link>
    <description>Creditor-requested Look Out Circulars cannot be used as coercive debt-recovery measures against personal guarantors. The rights to movement and overseas travel under Articles 19 and 21 may be restricted only by law or a competent judicial order and cannot be waived through private guarantee arrangements. An unexecuted debt recovery certificate and pending personal-guarantee proceedings, without fraud allegations, criminal process, or a travel-restraint order, do not provide a lawful basis for continued foreign-travel restrictions. Requiring guarantors to disclose travel plans to creditors lacks legal basis and may intrude on privacy. Each travel prevention under such a circular creates a fresh cause of action, preventing delay and laches from barring challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2026 05:20:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=930357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 1084 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801141</link>
      <description>Creditor-requested Look Out Circulars cannot be used as coercive debt-recovery measures against personal guarantors. The rights to movement and overseas travel under Articles 19 and 21 may be restricted only by law or a competent judicial order and cannot be waived through private guarantee arrangements. An unexecuted debt recovery certificate and pending personal-guarantee proceedings, without fraud allegations, criminal process, or a travel-restraint order, do not provide a lawful basis for continued foreign-travel restrictions. Requiring guarantors to disclose travel plans to creditors lacks legal basis and may intrude on privacy. Each travel prevention under such a circular creates a fresh cause of action, preventing delay and laches from barring challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>