* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 9576/2007 and CM No. 17993/2007 Date of Decision : 21 st May, 2008 SANJEEV R.APTE ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate. versus I.F.C.I. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate, for the respondent no.1/IFCI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? J U D G M E N T 21.05.2008 W.P.(C) No. 9576/2007 Pg. 1 of 6 MUKUL MUDGAL, J. (ORAL) The writ petition challenges the order dated 27 th November, 2007 passed by the Chairman, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The facts of the case are as under:- The dispute arose from the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT') in OA No. 415/2000 filed by IFCI Ltd. against M/s. AEC Ssangyong Ltd. and others for recovery of Rs.52 crores and odd with pendente lite and future interest. The petitioner herein was the guarantor for the repayment of the said loan amount. Pursuant to the said suit, a recovery certificate was issued where the petitioner was Certificate Debtor no.2. In these proceedings on 24 th December, 2002, the following order was passed: - “CD No.2 through his counsel is directed to deposit his passport with the undersigned immediately. He is directed to file affidavit of assets/movable/immovable and details of bank accounts and details of family members by next date of hearing. CD No.2 is directed not to leave the country till further orders from the undersigned.” This order was challenged in appeal before the DRT and by the order dated W.P.(C) No. 9576/2007 Pg. 2 of 6 25 th August, 2005 the said challenge was dismissed leading to the appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRAT') which led to the impugned order dated 27 th November, 2007. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in so far as the order in paragraph 10 deals with the judgment of this Court in the case of A.S. Mittal vs. P.O. Debts Recovery Tribunal and Others in CM(M) No. 505/1999 decided on 21 st November, 2003. The Tribunal had distinguished the aforesaid judgment on the ground that in that case the recovery of the liability had not taken place as was done in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal's reasoning is to the effect that once a determination of the liability has taken place, the judgment in A.S. Mittal's case (supra) rendered by the learned Single Judge does not apply. The relevant portion of the said judgment are as under:- “4. A reading of Section 19(6) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the power of the Tribunal are namely to make interim order whether by way of an injunction or stay against the defendant to debar him from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with, or disposing of any property and assets belonging to him without the prior W.P.(C) No. 9576/2007 Pg. 3 of 6 permission of the Tribunal. This certainly does not empower the Tribunal to restrain the petitioner from travel. Section 22(1) of the Act provides for procedure and does not give powers as have been executed by the Tribunal. Needless to say that Rule 18 could not be construed to give powers beyond the substantive Section. 5. Having gone through the powers enumerated above, I hold that the Tribunal had no authority whatsoever to either impound the passport of the petitioner or to put any restriction on the travel of the petitioner. In the present case, the tribunal is entitled to pass interim order in accordance with Section 19(6) of the act and no more. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order dated 4 th May, 1999. However, the petitioner is directed to make himself available before the Tribunal as and when he is required, for which purpose he shall give an undertaking to the Tribunal.” The law laid down by the learned Single Judge is clear that the Tribunal does not have any power to restrain a citizen from travelling. This determination of law by the learned Single Judge that the Tribunal had no authority whatsoever to either impound the passport of the petitioner or to put any restriction on the travel of the petitioner abroad in exercise of its powers to pass an interim order W.P.(C) No. 9576/2007 Pg. 4 of 6 under Section 19(6) of the Act is not dependent upon determination of liability by the Tribunal. In our view, the judgment has been totally misconstrued by the DRAT in confining it to matters where the liability has not been determined. In our view, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, which we hereby affirm and endorse, is categorical and denies the Tribunal such a right to impose any restriction on the passport of the petitioner. The applicability of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in A.S. Mittal's case was applicable to the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal and was not conditional as wrongly construed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal, to the extent which imposes restriction on the travelling and passport of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. However, as a pre-condition of exercising of the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we had inquired from the petitioner whether he will undertake to abide by the terms of the conditions contained in the letter dated 5 th April, 2008 issued by the sister company of the petitioner-company W.P.(C) No. 9576/2007 Pg. 5 of 6 from which the present dispute arose and of which company the petitioner is also a Director. The petitioner says that he has no objection to give an undertaking to comply with the terms imposed in the letter dated 5 th April, 2008. If an when such an undertaking is filed, the order passed today shall come into effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall also state that the conditions imposed on the letter dated 5 th April, 2008 shall be complied with not later than 3 rd September, 2008. He shall file an undertaking to the said effect with the learned Registrar General of this Court. In view of the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs. (MUKUL MUDGAL) JUDGE (V.K. SHALI) May 21, 2008 JUDGE sk W.P.(C) No. 9576/2007 Pg. 6 of 6