The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deprive a person of his right to go abroad under the Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in so far as he imposed conditions on the travel of the Petitioner to the effect that he shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,00,000/- in official account of Recovery Officer.

The bench of Justice Pranay Verma held, "....it has been laid down that right of a person to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. No person can be deprived of his aforesaid right except according to the procedure established by law. Law would mean 'Enacted Law' or 'State Law'. Nothing has been brought on record to show that a law has been made by the State regulating depriving a person of such right in case proceedings under Section 19 of the DRT Act, 1993 are pending against him. Since there is no such enacted law or state law the DRT has no jurisdiction to deprive a person of his right to go abroad."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh Chhabra while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Sanjay Pathak.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was an ex-Director of Metalman Industries Limited and the Respondent Bank is a lender. Since there was default in repayment of loans advanced to Metalman Industries Limited it was declared as a NPA. Respondent filed an Original Application under Section 19 (1) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Debts Recovery Tribunal issued a recovery certificate in favour of the Bank. The Petitioner being a co-guarantor to the loan has been arrayed as Corporate Debtor No.2 in the proceedings. The Petitioner received an offer for appointment in the United States of America and accepted the same. Thereafter he approached the DRT by filing an Application seeking permission to travel abroad. The Application was contested by the Respondent by filing reply to the same. By the impugned order, the DRT imposed conditions on the Petitioner for his travel.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned conditions are dehors the powers conferred upon the authority by the Act, 1993 or the Rules made thereunder and the same violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable on his free movement abroad and adversely effect his livelihood and employment.

It was argued that there is no power under the Act, 1993 or the Rules to impose conditions as have been imposed for the purpose of granting permission to travel abroad.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Satvant Singh Sawhney wherein it was held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right.

"When the Tribunal does not have the power to deprive a person of his right to travel abroad then it would not also have any power to impose any condition upon him for travelling abroad. The conditions as have been imposed by the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal upon the petitioner by way of the impugned order are hence unsustainable and cannot be given the stamp of approval since they effectively deprive him of his right to travel abroad. Though permission has been granted by the Tribunal but on such conditions as above which in absence of any power itself to prohibit the petitioner from traveling abroad cannot be sustained", the Court held.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Rajiv Soni V. ICICI Bank (2025:MPHC-IND:35067)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh Chhabra, Advocate Raghav Raj Singh

Respondent- Advocate Sanjay Pathak

Click here to read/ download Order

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Pranay Verma

Sheetal Joon