TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39; for short) and Punjab National Bank ('PNB' for short). Hence, they are disposed of by this common order: Facts of the case: 2. On November 30, 2020, petitioner has presented W.P.No.13862/2020 with a prayer inter alia to declare the endorsement dated November 14, 2020 by Bureau of Immigration not permitting him to travel to Abu Dhabi, UAE, as illegal. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the learned Central Government Counsel has filed a copy of the letter dated December 8, 2020 written by the Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration in reply to petitioner's letter seeking reasons for not allowing him to board the flight. It is stated in the said letter that BOB and PNB have issued LOCs dated May 8, 2020 and July 18, 2020 respectively to prevent petitioner from leaving India. 3. In the second Writ petition No.15032/2020, petitioner has challenged the letter issued by the Bureau of Immigration with following prayers: a. Call for records of the Respondents relating to the issuance of Look Out Circular / communication dated 08.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 issued by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively, based on which the Petitioner was preven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pending in Dubai and Abu Dhabi filed by various Banks including Indian Banks and four cases in India. 6. Bank of Baroda has filed a suit for specific performance in Com.O.S.No.1/2020 against petitioner. The order passed on application for interim injunction by the Commercial Court has been challenged before this Court in Com.AP No.19/2020 and this Court has passed an order of status quo. 7. Petitioner has not received any notice from PNB but he has learnt that PNB has initiated recovery proceedings in Dubai. 8. Petitioner had travelled to India during February 2020. He was scheduled to travel to Abu Dhabi on November 14, 2020 and he was denied permission by the Immigration Authorities to board the Flight. Hence, these writ petitions. 9. Shri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Advocate after addressing detailed arguments has filed a synopsis and summary of his arguments as follows: * Loans were taken in UAE by various Companies and petitioner has given guarantees in UAE and not in India; * Default in repayment has occurred due to mismanagement by the borrower Companies which came to light between December 2019 and April 2020. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Guarantee Agreement executed by the petitioner in favour of the Banks provides for initiation of proceedings by the Banks in any number of jurisdictions. Shri. Ravishankar has filed a copy of the Guarantee Agreement dated June 15, 2010 executed in favour of PNB. Clause 10.1 thereof, provides that Courts of Dubai shall have 'non-exclusive jurisdiction'. Admittedly, BOB has filed a suit for specific performance in the Commercial Court, Bengaluru and in the Commercial Appeal filed thereon, this Court has directed an order of status-quo. 16. In the second writ petition, petitioner has prayed for: * a direction to provide copy of the look out circular; * mandamus to declare issuance of LOCs without prior notice as illegal; and * to permit petitioner to travel to Abudabi. 17. Petitioner has conceded to Bank's power to issue LOCs. The relevant portion in Official Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure-AA) namely Paragraph No.7 thereof reads as follows: "7. The High Court has answered these questions in its judgment dated 11.8.2010 which are reproduced below for guidance of all concerned agencies; a) Reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssuing authority and in this case, the BOB and PNB. Therefore, the argument seeking prior notice is incongruous and therefore rejected. 20. The third prayer is to permit petitioner to travel to Abudabi. Unless, petitioner exhausts the remedy of approaching BOB and PNB and explains to them as to how the LOCs have been wrongly issued and the Banks pass any further orders thereon, there is no cause of action to consider the said prayer. 21. Shri Shashikiran Shetty relied upon an order passed in a review petition by the Calcutta High Court in UCO Bank Vs. Dr.Siten Saha Roy and others (Decided on 06.02.2020 in a review petition in W.P.No.23412/2019). Relying on the said judgment, he argued that in similar set of facts, interpreting the economic interest of India, the Calcutta High Court has held that the economic interests, if considered in proper perspective, has to be on a much higher footing, directly and adversely impacting the share market or the economy of the Country as a whole, which destabilizes the entire economy. Perusal of said order shows that petitioner's liability in that case was Rs.20 Crores. 22. Shri Shetty also relied upon Mrs.Maneka Gandhi V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f no avail to the petitioner because the amount involved in the said case was Rs.20 Crores and proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act to recover the amount from the assets mortgaged to the bank. In contradistinction, in this case, the amount involved is astronomically high when compared with the Calcutta case, which is about Rs.2800 Crores. It is more than one third of the annual budget of a State like Sikkim. Thus the amount involved in this case is bound to have serious impact on the economy of this Country and therefore the authorities in the case of Shivashakti Sugars Vs. Renu Sugar Ltd., and Marida Chemicals Vs. Union of India are aptly applicable. 29. One of the main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is, he is 'only a guarantor'. In the facts of this case, this admission, without anything more, must entail dismissal of this writ petition in limine because a guarantor is equally liable to repay the debt. Further, it is admitted in the pleadings that petitioner is the promoter of the borrower Companies. 30. The liability of guarantor is well settled. In Ram Kishun Vs. State of UP (2012)11 SCC 511 it is held as follows: ....