The Bombay high court on 19th September allowed Shrikant Bhasi, owner of Carnival Cinemas, to travel abroad for a month for business purposes in spite of a lookout circular (LOC) against him for recovery of Rs. 1,233 crore by the State Bank of India. The order was passed on a plea by Bhasi whom the HC had allowed to travel abroad in August also.
Bhasi’s plea to stay the LOC was, however, turned down by the court.
The SBI has already moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Jabalpur to recover dues against Advantage Overseas and others. Bhasi was impleaded as an alleged guarantor, and the bank sought attachment of his non-secured assets and impounding of his passport.
Bhasi was stopped at the Bombay airport on 8th June and not allowed to travel abroad as the LOC had been issued against him on the request of the SBI chairman.
On 21st August, the high court admitted Shrikant Bhasi’s petition for final hearing as it raised arguable questions and allowed him to travel from 29th August to 8th September. The bench of Justices Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari and Gautam Patel then observed that “if a businessman is prevented from travelling abroad for business commitments, then it will cause him irreparable harm and injury”.
On 19th September, the judges said that they “see some substance in the apprehension” of the SBI if they allowed Bhasi to travel abroad. They, therefore, declined to stay the LOC “at this stage”. The bench said, it is “disturbed” by the fact that though proceedings are pending before the DRT, Jabalpur, Bhasi moved court seeking not only permission to travel abroad and the return of his passport but direction to the competent authorities to grant him a particular visa so as to enable him to strike business deals abroad.
As Bhasi had moved the high court “at the last minute”, the judges allowed him to “fly out of India on September 22 and return by October 21”. The bench said, Shrikant Bhasi should henceforth move the DRT for relief. It also clarified that his applications to travel having been granted by HC “does not mean that the Tribunal at Jabalpur is bound by the order and such directions”.