L.MADHUSUDHAN RAO Petitioner Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rajat Malhotra,Mr.Aditya Malhotra,Mr.Uday Arora and Mr.Vaibhav Mishra,Advocates v. ICICIBANKLIMITED AND ORS.

4. The limited scope of both these writ petitions is the legality of one sentence in the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal('DRAT')on29^^ October2019,in which whilereserving ordersin the main appeals i.e. MA Nos.396 and 399/2019,preferred by ICICI Bank Limited against the order ofthe Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi('DRT') dated 20* July, 2019 in OA No.904/2018 and OA No. 1463/2018, the DRAT directed that: "Till the pronouncement ofthe order.Respondent No.l shall notleave the country".

5. The Petitioner before this Court wasRespondentNo.l before the DRAT.

6. It must be noted at this stage that the order dated 20* July,2019 ofthe DRTin both the above OAsrequired the Petitioner herein to"now onwards" give intimation to the DRT,"7 days before while travelling abroad with advance copy to the Applicant ofOA".Further,the Petitioner was"directed W.P. (C)11581/2019&11583/2019 Page2of[6] to remain available before this Tribunal as and when he is required,for the said purpose is hereby directed to furnish an undertaking."

7. The said order was passed in the lA filed in each of the OAs by the presentPetitioner before the DRT seeking to vacate/modify its earlier orders dated 21^^August2018 and 9^*^ January 2019,restraining himfrom travelling abroad without obtaining the prior permission ofthe DRT.Before the DRT in the said lA it was submitted on behalf ofthe present Petitioner that the power ofthe DRT under Section 19(25)ofthe Recovery ofDebts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(RDDBFI Act)(now known as the Recovery ofDebts and Bankruptcy Act,1993)is a limited one.Reliance was placed on thejudgment dated 8* March,2017 passed by this Court in I W.P.(C) No.10765/2015 (ICICI Bank Limited v. Kapil Puri), where in identical circumstancesthis Court upheld the order ofthe DRAT,which had allowed the appeals ofthe Respondents therein questioning the orders ofthe DRT that they should inform the DRT and seek its permission prior to travelling abroad.

8. This CourtinICICIBank Limited v. KapilPuri(supra)noted that while the deed ofguarantee executed by the Respondents in that case did contain a clause which required them to take prior permission of the ICICI Bank Limited in the event oftravelling abroad for employment or business or a long term stay, such a clause did not empower "the DRT to direct, that Respondents No.1 and 2 would seek its permission." This Court was ofthe view that in purported invocation ofits power under Section 19(25)ofthe RDDBFIAct,such an order could not have been passed bythe DRT. W.P. (C)11581/2019&11583/2019 Page3of[6]

9. In the presentcase,theDRTin its order dated 20^^ July,2019took note of the abovejudgment in KapilPuri and modified its earlier orders dated 21®^ August,2018 and 9^*^ January, 2019 and directed that the Petitioner herein will give a 7 days' advance to the DRT prior to travelling abroad with an advance copytoICICIBank Limited and also to furnish an undertakingthat he willremain presentas and when required bytheDRT.

10. It appears that during the pendency ofthe appeals before the DRAT not order was passed by it staying the aforementioned two orders dated 20^'' July,2019 ofthe DRT.

11. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner drew attention to clause 7(v)ofthe deed of guarantee executed by the present Petitioner which is identical in wording to the clause in the deed of guarantee in the KapilPuri case. The said clause states that the guarantors shall not: "Leave Indiafor employmentor business orforlong term stay abroad solong as any amountsremain outstanding underthe Facility together with interest and other dues and charges including prepayment charges as per the rules ofthe said Banks then in force. Whether the stay islongterm or notshall be decided solely bythe said Banks."

12. Mr. Aggarwal,learned counsel for the ICICI Bank Limited on a query by this Court admitted thatICICIBank Limited had accepted the decision in KapilPuri(supra) and did not choose to challenge it. The judgment has held the field,as far as this High Courtis concerned,since March,2017.He W.P. (C)11581/2019&11583/2019 Page4of[6] tried to persuade this Court that it should doubt the correctness ofthe said judgmentand referthe matterto alarger Bench.

13. Having examined the saidjudgment in KapUPuri carefully and noting the factthat even theICICI Bank Limited has not chosen to challenge ittill date, this Court is not persuaded to accept the above plea. Indeed, the wording ofthe above clause in the deed ofguarantee is unambiguous.There is no question oftheDRT,orforthat matterthe DRAT,bound asthey are in their respective functioning by the provisions ofRDDBFI Act to exercise powers in terms ofthe said clause in the guarantee to restrain the Petitioner from travelling abroad. In the circumstances, the Court fails to understand the DRAT adding the above line to the order by which it reservedjudgment in the two appeals filed by ICICI Bank Limited imposing a blanket ban on thePetitioner herein from leaving the country.This appearsto befar beyond even the clause inthe deed ofguarantee executed bythe Petitioner.

14. Following thejudgment ofthis Court in KapilPuri(supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the DRAT could not have issued such a blanketorderrestraining thePetitionerfrom leavingthe country,particularly when it was called upon to decide the correctness ofthe order dated 20^*^ July, 2019 of the DRT in the appeals pending before it and without any interim order earlier having been passed by it staying the orders in appeal before it.

15. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order which reads "till the pronouncement of orders. Respondent No.l shall not leave the country" is W.P. (C)11581/2019 11583/2019 Page5of[6] hereby set aside.

16. It must be recalled here that the appeals before the DRAT were by the ICICI Bank Limited. On his part, the Petitioner herein appears to have accepted the orders dated 20^^ July 2019 of the DRT. It is accordingly clarified that as a resultofthis order,the DRT's orders dated 20'^ July,2019 will continue to remain operational till such time the DRAT pronounces its judgmentin the appeals pending before it againstthe said orders.

17. This order will not prevent ICICI Bank Limited from seeking any other remedy that it wishes to avail under any other law for the time being in force.

18. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. The pending applications are also disposed of.