Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Devan M. Desai permitted the applicant to travel to the United Arab Emirates from 07.06.2025 to 27.06.2025, notwithstanding a lookout circular issued at the behest of a respondent bank. The Court directed immigration authorities to facilitate the applicant’s travel and issued a series of conditions to govern the applicant’s departure and return. The civil application seeking interim relief was accordingly allowed to the specified extent.

The applicant filed a Special Civil Application seeking suspension of a lookout circular (LOC) issued at the instance of one of the respondent banks. The application specifically prayed for permission to travel outside India to the UAE until 31.08.2025 and for directions to prevent any restraint on such travel by the respondents during the pendency of the main petition.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Standard Chartered | Calls Case A Clear Abuse Of Law Over Escrow Dispute

The application stated that the travel was necessary for business reasons, specifically for the purpose of engaging with companies in the UAE regarding the outsourcing of backend IT support and enterprise resource planning software services to India. According to submissions made, the applicant had secured purchase orders relevant to these business interests and was required to travel abroad to successfully implement them.

An additional affidavit dated 02.06.2025, filed on behalf of the applicant, outlined the intended travel schedule from 07.06.2025 to 27.06.2025. The applicant relied on previous orders issued by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court, which had granted him similar permissions on multiple occasions. These previous instances, listed and submitted in a compilation, included orders dated 23.10.2024, 12.12.2024, 10.01.2025, 25.02.2025, 09.04.2025, 09.05.2025, and 19.05.2025. On each occasion, the applicant had filed undertakings complying with the terms set out in those respective orders.

In response, counsel for the respondent bank submitted an affidavit-in-reply dated 02.06.2025. The bank opposed the application on grounds that the applicant, a promoter and director of Sai Infosystem (India) Ltd., had defaulted on substantial credit facilities extended by multiple banks. It was submitted that not a single repayment had been made by the applicant, and that the attempt to secure foreign travel permission was an attempt to avoid liability under the pretext of business engagements.

The respondent further contended that a repayment plan submitted by the applicant under Section 105 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on 28.08.2024 proposed to repay Rs.50 lakh over 18 months, as against admitted creditor claims exceeding Rs.29,47,62,43,121.00. The bank submitted that all creditors had rejected the repayment plan, with the voting deadline having lapsed on 15.10.2024. The applicant’s asset disclosure in the plan was stated to be Rs.45,63,000.00.

The bank warned that granting such permission could risk the applicant absconding, leading to undue delay in pending proceedings across various forums. It was submitted that the application lacked merit and that creditors had already been authorized to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, following the rejection of the proposed repayment plan on 29.04.2025.

The Court considered the application and the affidavits on record. It specifically examined the submissions of the respondent bank and noted the absence of any serious objections from the remaining respondents.

The Court stated in its order: “Considering the averments made in the application and in affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the Respondent No.4 and more particularly, in absence of any serious contention made by rest of the Respondents, I am of the view that application requires consideration.”

Based on this view, the Court proceeded to formulate conditional relief allowing the applicant’s travel.

The Court permitted the applicant to travel to the United Arab Emirates from 07.06.2025 to 27.06.2025, subject to specific conditions. It directed that the lookout circular issued by the opponent bank shall not obstruct the applicant’s travel abroad in accordance with the submitted itinerary. The applicant was instructed to provide the exact travel itinerary, including contact details for places of stay, by way of an undertaking to the Registry prior to departure.

The applicant was required to comply with this undertaking and return to India as per the declared itinerary. In the event of non-compliance, the Court reserved the right to initiate appropriate legal measures. Additionally, the applicant was mandated to deposit Rs.25 lakh by Demand Draft in the name of the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat. This amount was to be deposited into the designated account and would be returned to the applicant upon their return, without necessitating a further formal order from the Court.

Also Read: Full Reimbursement Ordered for Heart Transplant | Bombay HC Slams HPC's Mechanical Rejection as 'Travesty of Justice', Directs CGHS to Pay Within Four Weeks

The applicant was prohibited from seeking any extension of stay beyond the period specified in the submitted itinerary. Furthermore, the applicant was restrained from opening or closing any bank accounts overseas or engaging in any property transactions abroad. The Court also directed that no adjournments be sought in any legal or administrative proceedings on the ground of foreign travel.

To facilitate the applicant’s departure, the Court instructed immigration authorities at all ports of departure to permit the applicant to clear immigration and board flights. The respondent bank was directed to notify the Bureau of Immigration so that necessary instructions could be issued. The Bureau was required to update its systems to ensure the applicant’s unobstructed passage in accordance with the Court's order. All relevant authorities, including immigration officials at airports, were directed to act upon an authenticated copy of the order.

In light of these directions, the Court allowed the civil application to the extent specified.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mohit A. Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Kshitij M. Amin, Advocate and Nalini S. Lodha, Advocate

Case Title: Sunil Surendrakumar Kakkad v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 12371 of 2023

Bench: Justice Devan M. Desai

[Read/Download order]