WP/7139/2025 of NANDLAL MALOO S/O BANKATLAL MALOO Vs UNION OF INDIA, THR. COMMISSIONER (IMMIGRATION) BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, NEW DELHI AND ANR. on 16 October 2026

903-WP-7139-2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 7139 of 2025 Nandlal Maloo and Bankatlal Maloo vs. Union of India, through Commissioner (immigration) Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi and ant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Shamish Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K. N. Shukul, DSGI, a/w Mr. S.A.Chaudhari, Advocate a/b Mr. Raghav Tiwari and Mr.C.D.Batra, Advocates for the respondent no.1. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM :- ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE :- 16th OCTOBER, 2026. P. C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The only grievance raised in the present petition is as regards the restriction imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, vide order dated 16.05.2016, thereby prohibiting the petitioner from leaving India without the prior permission of the Tribunal.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner wants to travel abroad as his Doctor advised him for medical treatment out of India.

4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in Writ Petition No. 2826 of 2022 (Anurag s/o Padmesh Gupta vs. Bank of India and anr.) decided on 07.06.2022. This Court in the aforementioned case while disposing of the said writ petition has observed thus: “13. It is now well settled that the expression "personal liberty" includes a right of a citizen to travel abroad and return to the home country without any impediment, direct or indirect. The expression "personal liberty" has not been used in the restricted sense of freedom from arrest and detention but has been used in a much wider sense. This right emanates from the freedom of a person. The right to travel abroad and return to the country without impediment, direct or indirect, is contained in the expression "personal liberty" occurring in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is 2026:BHC-NAG:13951-DB

903-WP-7139-2025.odt 2 well settled that law in this Article means the law enacted by a competent Legislature.

14. The difference between Article 19 and Article 21 is that rights conferred by Article 19, which certainly are fundamental personal rights, are conferred only on the citizens, and restrictions thereon could be imposed by law in a limited manner stated in the said clauses. Article 21 comprises all the personal liberties which are not included in Article 19. The rest of the personal rights are conferred not only on the citizens but on all, including citizens. Every person could be deprived of these rights in their totality "according to procedure established by law". The mandate of Article 21 is that the deprivation of "personal liberty" has to be "according to procedure established by law."

15. If the right to travel is a part of the personal liberty of a person, he cannot be deprived of his right except according to the procedure established by law. The right to travel abroad is right distinct and separate from the right of freedom of movement in a foreign country. The right to travel abroad by its necessary implications means the right to leave the home country and visit a foreign country. The right to travel abroad has been spelt out from the expression “ personal liberty” in Article 21 of the Constitution.

23. Mr. Purohit, learned Advocate for respondent No.1, has placed reliance upon judgment in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra) and Smt. Annai Jayabharathi (supra), in support of his submission, that the Tribunal has power under Section 22 and Section 19 of the said Act to pass an order restraining a person from travelling abroad. In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd., the High Court of Delhi has considered both judgments and, by detailed judgment, has dissented from the views taken by Kerala and Madras High Court. A similar matter fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India (supra), which held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to restrain a person from travelling abroad in the absence of specific powers to that effect. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.16714/2011 against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2011. We fully agree with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra) and Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India (supra) that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to restrain a person from travelling abroad”

5. Since the present case is covered by the above referred judgment, we are of the opinion that the restrictions imposed by the Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

903-WP-7139-2025.odt 3

6. Accordingly, the restrictions imposed by the Tribunal not to leave India without prior permission of the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside.

7. The petitioner has given undertaking in Clause (E) of the grounds mentioned in the petition, the same shall be submitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which will be binding on him.

8. As regards withdrawal of Lookout order and grant of no objection, the petitioner may apply to the Bank concerned. If such application is made by the petitioner, the concerned Bank shall consider the same keeping in view the purpose of the petitioner to leave India and the relevant law.

9. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Andurkar. Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/10/2026 17:35:46