Read Time: 06 minutes

The Bombay High Court has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to restrain a person from travelling abroad in the absence of specific powers to that effect.

After careful consideration of the language of Sub-Section 12, 13(A), 17 and 18 of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Nagpur bench of the High Court has held that the Tribunal is not conferred with specific power to restrain a person from leaving the country.

"In the absence of a specific provision conferred on the Debt Recovery Tribunal by statute, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to restrain a citizen from travelling abroad, particularly when the said right has been recognised as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India...", observed a bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Amit Borkar.

These observations were made by the division bench while allowing a writ petition filed by one Anurag, challenging DRT's order refusing his plea to attend his sister-in-law's marriage in Turkey from June 9 to 17, 2022.

Anurag was the personal guarantor of a private limited company, M/s. Gupta Energy Pvt. Ltd., which was undergoing proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLT, Mumbai and the same was under liquidation by order passed by the NCLT dated March 15, 2018.

Bank of India filed an Original Application before DRT Nagpur, for recovery of amount against Anurag and other directors of the Company for a sum of Rs.110,15,00,000. In the said Original Application, Bank also sought interim relief restraining Anurag from traveling abroad and for impounding his passport.

DRT had then passed the impugned order in 2018.

While challenging this order, two important questions were put forth before the High Court

1. Whether the expression "personal liberty" occurring in Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad?
2. Whether the refusal to grant permission to travel abroad results in the infringement of Article 21?

Court noted that the expression "personal liberty" has not been used in the restricted sense of freedom from arrest and detention but has been used in a much wider sense.

"The right to travel abroad and return to the country without impediment, direct or indirect, is contained in the expression "personal liberty" occurring in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is well settled that law in this Article means the law enacted by a competent Legislature....", further observed the division bench.

Court also relied on the reply submitted by the bank before DRT where no apprehension was expressed by it that Anurag was likely to abscond from the country.

Advocate Akshay Naik a/w Advocates DV Chauhan and CJ Dhruv also assured the court that Anurag was ready to submit an undertaking that he would return to India on June 17, 2022 as per the flight details mentioned by him and with carry his mobile phone with an active mobile number to Turkey among other things.

Case Title: Anurag vs. Bank of India and Anr.