TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Shashikiran Shetty for Smt.Latha S Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri.Shanthi Bhushan for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Parashuram, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner along with her husband had obtained loan from the 3rd respondent-Bank on 19.12.2014. The property which is offered as security to the loan obtained by them stands in joint name of the petitioner as well as her husband Mr.Rakesh Kumar. It is submitted that the petitioner and her husband are due in a sum of Rs.66,11,868/- as on 13.06.2022. It is also submitted that the petitioner and her husband had not paid the installments from September 2019 to the 3rd respondent-Bank. The reason for not repaying the loan is that, due to differences between the petitioner and her husband, they are before the Family Court in M.C.No.5079/2019 praying for a judgment and decree to dissolve their marriage. 4. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, to tender her evidence in the pending divorce proceedings, the petitioner came down t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the present case, when the security of the property is more than the value of the amount due, which is nearly Rs.66,11,868/-, the same would have no effect on the economic interest of the Country. Thus, learned Senior counsel relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh contended that quantum of the alleged default by the borrower by itself cannot be the basis for seeking issuance of an extreme process like an LOC for restricting the personal liberty of the petitioner to travel outside the Country. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri.Shanthi Bhushan appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that LOC was issued and the petitioner was prevented from traveling outside the Country at the request of 3rd respondent-Bank. Further, he would invite attention of this Court to O.M. dated 04.10.2016 produced along with statement of objections by respondent No.3 that wherever respondent-Bank is of the opinion that fraudsters/persons who wish to take loans, willfully default and then escape to foreign jurisdictions to avoid paying back, against such persons, request could be made to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of loan. Thus, it is submitted that in the financial interest of the respondent-Bank, the Bank requested for issuance of LOC. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration is as to whether the respondent-Bank is justified in requesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 to prevent the petitioner from travelling outside the Country and to issue LOC against the petitioner. 10. Answer to the above point in the facts of the case would be in the negative for the following reasons: It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and her husband obtained loan of Rs.62,00,000/- from the 3rd respondent-Bank for purchase of Apartment on 19.12.2014. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner as well as her husband are due in a sum of Rs.66,11,868/- as on 13.06.2022. It is also to be noted that the 3rd respondent- Bank has initiated recovery action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and it brought the secured property for sale and no buyers have come forward to buy the secured property. 11. The petitioner who is working at Philippines to eke out her livel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f security held by the Bank is around Rs.68,00,000/-. But, nowhere in the statement of objections nor in the affidavit filed today, the 3rd respondent-Bank has disclosed the value of the security. Non-disclosure of value of the secured property itself would disclose the intention of the Bank and the Court could draw adverse inference against the respondent-Bank. At this juncture, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the value of the property is more than Rs.75,00,000/- is to be believed. Moreover, issuance of LOC or preventing a person from traveling abroad cannot be a mode of recovery of dues by the 3rd respondent-Bank. The amount due by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent-Bank in a sum of Rs.66,11,868/- would have no impact or affect the economic interest of the Country, more so, when the 3rd respondent is having security of value of which is more than the amount due from the petitioner. The contention of the 3rd respondent-Bank that, since the petitioner inducted tenants, they are not in a position to sell the secured asset is liable to be rejected for the reason that the 3rd respondent-Bank is not remedy less. The provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2022 safeguard....