The Madras High Court has held that when there is no fraud at the instance of a litigant, he cannot be forced to stay within the four corners of the country in order to ensure that the amounts are repaid. The High Court also held that a letter written by the Manager of the bank to the Bureau of Immigration cannot be treated as “law”.

The review petition before the High Court was filed at the instance of Bank of Baroda under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of CPC and Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking review of the order in the light of alleged suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held, “When there is no fraud, either at the instance of the petitioner or at the instance of the managerial staff of the bank, for the mere fact that the petitioner is a defaulter, he cannot be forced to stay within the four corners of this country in order to ensure that the amounts are re-paid.”

‘Law’ under Article 21 implies a legislation. A letter written by the Manager of the bank to the Bureau Of Immigration cannot be treated as “law”. If a Nationalized Bank is permitted to do this, then every private creditor or NBFCs would also be emboldened to approach the police for issuance of LOC to prevent their debtors from going abroad. God forbid the debtors from being thrown at the mercy of wolfs of creditors. All these observations are made only to point out that the constitutional rights of the petitioner does not come to an end with the commencement of mortgage with the review petitioner’s bank”, it added.

Advocate Revathi Manivannan represented the Petitioner while Senior Counsel Arvind Pandian represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first respondent (Writ Petitioner) had approached the Court seeking a direction with respect to revocation/ withdrawal/recall of Look Out circulars issued at the instance of the Commissioner of Immigration, Foreigners Regional Registration Office. The writ petitioner claimed that he was a promoter director of an entity M/s.GVR Infra Projects, which had taken a loan from M/s.Vijaya Bank. It defaulted, and Vijaya Bank merged with Bank of Baroda. The latter, as a financial creditor, had initiated proceedings invoking the IBC against M/s.GVR Infra Projects. A resolution plan was approved by the NCLT. It was put in force, and the debt against the principal debtor had been satisfied. Since the LOC continued against the petitioner, as he was a guarantor, he made a representation and filed the aforesaid Writ Petition.

When the writ petition came up for hearing, the Court directed the respondents to remove the LOC to enable him to go about his life normally. Thereafter, two other writ petitions came to be filed.

Arguments

The review petitioner sought the review on the grounds that though the debts against the principal debtors had been extinguished, as the petitioner was the guarantor, LOC had to be kept alive. It was further claimed that the resolution professional had advised the banks to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against the writ petitioner. This suggestion was under active consideration by the review petitioner and this fact had been suppressed by the writ petitioner from the Court. It was brought to the notice of the High Court that the Apex Court had directed that if persons like the petitioner want to travel abroad, they have to seek permission from the High Court before proceeding further.

Reasoning

The Bench found that none of the points raised by the review petitioner’s counsel had been placed by the Review Petitioner at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. “These points are not discovery of a new facts but it seems to be an attempt to re-agitate the correctness of the order passed by this High Court under the guise of a Review. It is a settled position of law that the review is not an appeal in disguise”, it added.

The Bench further explained that before finding whether the writ petitioner had suppressed material facts, it was the duty of the bank to point out to the Court whether such facts were material for the purpose of consideration of this proceeding. “All facts need not be disclosed to the Court. Relevant facts alone need to be disclosed”, it stated.

Dealing with the plea that the petitioner, being a guarantor to M/s.GVR Infra Projects, should not be permitted to leave the shores of this Country, the Bench found that no complaint had been lodged by the Bank of Baroda with the Central Bureau of Investigation or with the local police authorities alleging that the activities of the writ petitioner and his co-directors were fraudulent. The Bench thus stated, “The bank has to make a differentiation between a borrower, who with a fraudulent intention received the loans from the bank and another who has taken a decision, which the bank might consider foolish or even idiotic, and has resulted in a loss.”

Coming to the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by the review petitioner, the Bench noted that the Supreme Court ruling was confined only to the petitioners in that case and it was not a direction passed under Article 141 of the Constitution for all persons who want to go abroad. “The right to travel freely across the world is a fundamental right. It is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as declared by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. In order to have a restriction of that right, it should be in accordance with law”, it added.

Thus, finding no apparent error, the Bench dismissed the Review Petition.

Cause Title: Bank of Baroda (Formerly Vijaya Bank) v. Kondepati Ganga Prasad (Case No.: REV.APLWP Crl. No. 12 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Revathi Manivannan

Respondent: Senior Counsel Arvind Pandian, Advocates Sandeepkumar, G. Subramanian

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: