AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent in imposing a travel ban on the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel Sri B.Jitender, representing respondent Nos.1 to 6 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Director cum Chairman of GVR Infra Projects Ltd. GVR Infra Projects availed a loan from erstwhile Vijaya Bank which was now merged with the 7th respondent bank and the 8th respondent was the branch which has advanced the loan. Proceedings were initiated against the company under the provisions of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A resolution plan was approved by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority informing him about the said ban. The petitioner returned back and made a representation to the 4th respondent on 22.10.2021. When the information was not provided by the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30196 of 2021 and the said writ petition was disposed by order dated 24.11.2021, directing the 4th respondent to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner and also to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within a period of one week. The petitioner received a letter, dated 29.11.2021 from the 5th respondent stating that the information sought by the petitioner was pertaining to Intelligence Bureau (IB)/Bureau of Immigration (BOI) AND SINCE Section 24(1) and II Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the petitioner was stopped from travelling outside the country. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 submitted that on the request of GVR Infra Projects Limited, the erstwhile Vijaya Bank which was now merged with Bank of Baroda had sanctioned fund based and non-fund based credit facilities in consortium with individual exposure of Rs.250,03,49,427.18 (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Crores Three Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Eighteen only). The said facilities were secured by the personal guarantees of promoters of the company including the petitioner herein vide Deed of personal guarantee dated 18.05.2017. The company defaulted in making payments to the bank and its account was class....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d attempting to flee the country, the petitioner could not claim that his rights were violated. The bank had taken action as per the guidelines of Government of India to protect public money. The action by the bank to safeguard its economic interest does not amount to violation of petitioner's fundamental rights and prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. Perused the record and the office memorandum issued by the Government of India. 9. It was not in dispute that GVR Infra Projects Limited had taken loan of Rs.250.03 Crores from the erstwhile Vijaya Bank which was now merged with Bank of Baroda, Respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein. It was also not disputed by the petitioner that the said loan was secured by him by way of personal guarantee dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Bankruptcy Code to all the personal guarantors of the company including the petitioner to initiate personal insolvency proceedings and were in the process of filing insolvency application before NCLT, Chennai. The petitioner owed huge money of Rs.226.02 Crores which was public money and was aware of the legal proceedings against him and despite repeated requests and demand to pay the amount, he and was avoiding payment to the bank and the bank apprehended that the petitioner was attempting to flee the country to escape from legal process and as such recommended for opening of LOC against the guarantors including the petitioner herein, in order to recover the public money and to protect the economic interest of the country. 11. On perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r respondent Nos.7 and 8 relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi (Division Bench) in ICICI Bank Limited v. Kapil Puri and others reported in 2017 LawSuit (Del) 899. In the said case, the deed of guarantee, the term of contract stipulated that without the permission of ICICI, the respondents 1 and 2 should not leave India for employment or business or for long stay at abroad and the DRT without taking into consideration, the said terms, had given a blanket order directing the respondents 1 and 2 that whenever they would go out of India, they should inform the Tribunal and seek its permission, hence set aside the same. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satwant Singh Saw....