In the instant matter at hand, Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union of India The petitioners had settled all of the Banks’ claims except the respondent after obtaining loans for company expansion from numerous Banks. Due to a LOC obtained at the Indian Overseas Bank’s request, the petitioners were denied entry into the United Kingdom by the Immigration Authority. In response to the Immigration Authority’s action, the petitioners choose to file a writ petition with this court and ask for authorization to send their son, who is a petitioner, to the United Kingdom due to his scholastic obligations. Later, the petitioners made changes to the writ suit and requested that the LOC be quashed.
whether the LOC can still prevent the petitioners from leaving India.
Submission from parties
The respondents argued that the writ petition could not be changed to request the LOC’s quashing. The respondents further argued that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) needed to be included in the proceedings as a necessary party.
Observation of the court
The Calcutta High Court’s single-judge panel, which included Moushumi Bhattacharya, ruled that banks cannot give LOCs to anyone simply because a small number of people have been cheated and have departed India.
The Court pointed out that because the petitioners learned of the LOC after the writ petition was filed, they were unable to contest it in the initial writ petition. Rejecting the respondents’ assertions that the writ petition cannot be changed, the Court stated that such a claim is unfounded, irrational, and illegal. The Court noted that the petitioners had not complained about the CBI before or after the amendment and that the CBI Court had frequently given the petitioner permission to travel abroad while rejecting the respondents’ argument that the CBI should be added as a necessary party.
The petitioners’ brief departure from the country for a specific period would not have a negative impact on India’s economic interests, the Court noted, and they have not been identified as fraudsters, money launderers, or even economic offenders. The Court further noted that LOCs have an illogically long shelf life in addition to immediately and irrevocably violating a person’s fundamental freedom to travel. The Court invalidated the contested LOC issued by the bank and determined that the interference imposed on the petitioners as a result of the LOC was arbitrary and lacked any justification.