Debt Recovery Tribunal Has No Power To Direct Parties To Surrender Their Passport: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court observed that a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has no power direct a party to surrender his/her passport before it.

In that context, the Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, "The very act of the Tribunal in directing surrender of the passport of a citizen or its detention before it, would amount to impounding of passport. Such power is unavailable to the Tribunal."

Senior Counsel KN Phanindra appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan appeared for the respondents.

Nitin Kasliwal filed a petition requesting a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to release his passport. In 2015, lenders initiated proceedings seeking repayment and property attachment. Banks, under the Recovery of Debts Act, requested the Tribunal to retain Kasliwal's passport, which was granted. Kasliwal later sought to quash the order, but it was rejected. In 2016, he surrendered his passport to the Tribunal. In 2016, the Tribunal allowed him to use the passport for travel with proper itineraries. In 2016, his request to release the expired passport was denied, leading him to approach the High Court.

The Court observed that the very act of the Tribunal in directing the surrender of the passport of a citizen or its detention before it would amount to the impounding of the passport, and such power is unavailable to the Tribunal.

Relying on the case of Suresh Nanda vs CBI, it was observed that, "Retaining of the passport by the Tribunal can hardly be justified under the Act under which it functions much less under the provisions of the Act that are invoked by the Banks."

In light of the same, it was held that the petitioner was entitled for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for release of the passport.

Cause Title: Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal vs Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment