9 months ago
MP High Court Removes Rs 50 Crore Travel Abroad Condition
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a man named Rajeev Soni to travel abroad without having to deposit Rs 50 crore.
The court said that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot stop someone from traveling abroad or make them pay a big amount to do so.
The court explained that traveling abroad is a fundamental right, and no one can take that away without a proper law.
Rajeev Soni was a director of a company that had not repaid a loan, and the DRT had asked him to pay Rs 50 crore before he could travel for a job in the US.
The court said this was not right and allowed him to go without paying the money.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a DRT condition requiring Rajeev Soni to deposit Rs 50 crore to travel abroad.
The court ruled that the DRT does not have the power to impose such conditions, as the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.
Rajeev Soni, a former director of Metalman Industries, sought permission to travel abroad for a job in the US.
The DRT had imposed the condition of depositing Rs 50 crore or an equivalent surety in the form of immovable property.
The court clarified that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, does not grant the DRT the power to impose conditions for granting permission to travel abroad.
- Who
- Rajeev Soni, former director of Metalman Industries
- What
- Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) condition requiring Soni to deposit Rs 50 crore to travel abroad
- Where
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- When
- The exact date is not specified in the articles
- Why
- The court ruled that the DRT does not have the power to impose such conditions, as the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India
Key facts
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Petitioner
- Rajeev Soni
- Condition Imposed
- Deposit Rs 50 crore or equivalent surety
- Fundamental Rights
- Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India
- Act in Question
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993
- Judge
- Justice Pranay Verma
- Tribunal
- Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)
- Company Involved
- Metalman Industries
Quotes
Justice Pranay Verma
Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
“Entertaining a petition despite availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and despite such remedy a petition can be entertained inter alia if it is in respect of violation of fundamental rights of a person.”
indianexpress.com
“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.”
indianexpress.com
Sanjay Pathak
State's counsel
“The imposed condition was perfectly justified.”
indianexpress.com
Ravindra Singh Chhabra
Senior advocate representing Rajeev Soni
“The condition is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable on his client’s free movement abroad and adversely affecting his livelihood and employment.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Parliamentary Oversight Can Strengthen India’s Transparent, Responsive Governance
Why India Has Never Appointed a Distinguished Jurist
Constitution, Not Bhagwat, Determines Muslims’ Belonging in India
Kerala High Court Rejects ₹20,000 Compensation Cap
Kerala Minister Condemns Calls to Confine Women at Home
