Case Law Details
Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration (Karnataka High Court)
Conclusion: Request by Bank for issuance of ‘Look Out Circular’ for recovery of dues was unjustified as the action of Bank was arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair because the Bank was holding security of value of which was more than the amount due from assessee. Any action of the State if it was arbitrary and unreasonable was liable to be interfered.
Held: Assessee along with her husband had obtained loan from the UCO Bank in December 2014. The couple has not paid the instalments from September 2019 and were due in a sum of Rs.66,11,868/- as of June 2022 due to differences between assessee and her husband. The respondent-Bank could not have requested for issuance of LOC as the issuance of LOC was not a recovery proceeding. The Bank had already initiated recovery proceedings and had brought the property offered as security for sale, to realise the dues from the assessee and her husband. It was held that Bank’s request to issue LOC against assessee would affect the economic interest of the Country. Mere due of Rs.66,11,868/- could not be the basis for seeking issuance of LOC by Bank that too, restrict the personal liberty of assessee to travel outside the Country. Assessee was not leaving the Country to avoid repayment of loan of the Bank, but assessee was employed in the Philippines and she had come to India to tender her evidence in a pending matrimonial case. The amount due by assessee to the 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 Bank was having security of value of which was more than the amount due from assessee. Accordingly, the action of Bank was arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Any action of the State if it is arbitrary and unreasonable was liable to be interfered.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction, declaring that the actions of the respondents in issuing an endorsement of cancellation on the passport of the petitioner by respondent No.2 and not permitting the petitioner to travel from Bengaluru to Philippines as highly arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law; for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, declaring that the actions of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in preventing the petitioner from traveling out of Country on work as highly arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
