Karnataka HC Safeguards Right To Travel, Restricts Look Out Circular Misuse

The Karnataka High Court has recently reaffirmed that banks cannot exploit Look Out Circulars (LOCs) to infringe upon an individual’s right to travel due to loan defaults.

The petitioner sought relief after a LOC prevented him from traveling abroad for business purposes.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, considering the petitioner’s non-accused status and his role as a loan guarantor, emphasized that a citizen’s travel cannot be curtailed by the bank solely on the grounds of loan default. The judge referred to the earlier judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Leena Rakesh v. Bureau of Immigration, which held that a LOC or travel restriction can’t be used as a means of debt recovery.

The case revolved around a company that had borrowed funds from a consortium of banks. Following a dispute among the company’s promoters and subsequent financial losses, the company defaulted on its loan repayments. As a result, the banks initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to recover the outstanding debt, which also led to the issuance of LOCs against the company’s personal guarantors, including the petitioner.

These LOCs impeded the petitioner and others from conducting business activities overseas, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The Court examined whether the bank could curtail the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel, given that he claimed to be a non-functional director while the company was the borrower.

The Court highlighted the significant consequences of issuing an LOC, such as restricting the petitioner’s movement outside the country, even in the absence of a court order to that effect. It also cited a Delhi High Court judgment in the Rana Ayyub case, where the cancellation of an LOC against her was ordered, emphasizing that personal liberty to travel should only be curtailed in accordance with the law.

By upholding the petitioner’s right to travel, the Karnataka High Court reinforced the principle that an LOC cannot be misused by banks as a method of coercion for loan recovery.

Meera Verma

Recent Posts

Defamation Case: “Raut Didn’t Take Care & Caution, Caused Complainant Agony”- Mumbai Court

A Mumbai court has convicted Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut in a defamation case…

12 hours ago

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Tytler Case: Delhi Court Records Statement Of Lakhvinder Kaur

The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday recorded the emotional testimony of Lakhvinder Kaur, widow of…

12 hours ago

Satyendar Jain Says Probe In Money Laundering Case Incomplete, Seeks Default Bail In Delhi HC

Former minister Satyendar Jain, currently in jail, urged the Delhi High Court on Thursday to…

12 hours ago

Tirupati Laddus Row: SC To Hear Pleas Seeking Court-Monitored Probe On Oct 4

The Supreme Court is set to hear a series of petitions on Friday regarding the…

13 hours ago

SC Scraps Caste-Based Discrimination In Prisons, Terms It Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a groundbreaking judgment on Thursday, declaring caste-based discrimination in…

13 hours ago

Mahadev Betting App Case: SC Gives Bail To Chhattisgarh Businessman

The Supreme Court on Thursday has granted bail to Chhattisgarh businessman Sunil Dammani, who was…

13 hours ago