In a significant ruling on personal liberty and procedural compliance, the Bombay High Court granted permission to a petitioner to travel abroad despite an outstanding financial liability to the State Bank of India. The judgment underscores that mere financial disputes cannot override an individual's right to travel, provided appropriate undertakings and safeguards are in place.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Suman Vijay Gupta, sought permission to travel abroad from 15.07.2026 to 15.08.2026 to Dubai. This request arose in the context of a Lookout Circular (LOC) issued by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had previously been quashed by the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah vs. Union of India Through The Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr (WP No. 719 of 2020). The LOC was issued due to an outstanding financial liability owed by the applicant to SBI.
Key Facts
The applicant had an outstanding financial liability to SBI, which formed the basis for the LOC.
The Bombay High Court, in an earlier order dated 29.04.2024, quashed the LOC relying on the decision in Viraj Chetan Shah.
The Supreme Court, while issuing notice in Special Leave Petitions challenging the Viraj Chetan Shah decision on 12.08.2024, directed that petitioners seeking to travel abroad must seek permission from the High Court.
The applicant filed the present Interim Application (L) No. 22010 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 5010 of 2022, seeking permission to travel abroad.
The applicant provided details of her travel itinerary, including tickets for travel from 15.07.2026 to 15.08.2026.
Procedural History
29.04.2024: Bombay High Court quashed the LOC issued against the applicant in Viraj Chetan Shah.
12.08.2024: Supreme Court issued notice in Special Leave Petitions challenging the Viraj Chetan Shah decision and directed High Courts to expeditiously dispose of applications for travel permission.
14.07.2026: Present Interim Application filed seeking permission to travel abroad.
The Parties' Positions
Applicant: Sought permission to travel abroad, arguing that the LOC was no longer in force and that her travel plans were legitimate and time-bound. She offered to furnish an undertaking to return to India as per her itinerary.
Respondent (SBI): Opposed the relief on the ground that a substantial amount was due and payable by the applicant. However, the Court noted that this financial liability could not be a ground to deny travel permission.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought permission to travel abroad from 15.07.2026 to 15.08.2026, subject to furnishing an undertaking to return to India and providing contact details of two blood relatives remaining in the country during her travel.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether an individual could be denied permission to travel abroad solely on the ground of an outstanding financial liability, particularly when the Lookout Circular issued against them had been quashed and was no longer in force.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant's counsel argued that:
The LOC issued by SBI had already been quashed by the High Court in an earlier order dated 29.04.2024.
The applicant was willing to furnish an undertaking to return to India as per her travel itinerary.
The applicant had provided all necessary details, including travel tickets and contact information of relatives remaining in India.
The financial liability, while acknowledged, could not be a ground to restrict personal liberty in the absence of an active LOC.
For the Respondent (SBI)
The counsel for SBI contended that:
A substantial amount was due and payable by the applicant, which justified opposition to the travel permission.
However, the Court noted that this financial liability alone could not override the applicant's right to travel, especially when the LOC was no longer in force.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between personal liberty and financial liabilities in the context of travel permissions. Relying on the earlier decision in Viraj Chetan Shah, the Court observed that the LOC issued against the applicant had been quashed and was no longer operative. The Court further noted the directions issued by the Supreme Court on 12.08.2024, which mandated that High Courts dispose of travel permission applications expeditiously.
The Court held that while financial liabilities could be a concern, they could not be a ground to deny travel permission in the absence of an active LOC. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of individuals with the interests of creditors, ensuring that personal liberty was not unduly restricted.
"In our view, that cannot be a ground to refuse permission to travel abroad."
The Court directed the applicant to furnish an undertaking to return to India as per her itinerary and provide contact details of two blood relatives remaining in the country during her travel.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application (L) No. 22010 of 2026, permitting the applicant to travel abroad from 15.07.2026 to 15.08.2026. The Court imposed the following conditions:
The applicant must furnish an undertaking to return to India by 15.08.2026.
The applicant must provide her contact details and the contact details of two blood relatives remaining in India during her travel.
The undertaking must be furnished on the same day, given the imminent travel date.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Financial Liability Alone Cannot Restrict Travel
Practitioners should note that outstanding financial liabilities, by themselves, cannot justify the denial of travel permission, especially when the LOC has been quashed.
Courts are likely to prioritize personal liberty and procedural compliance over financial disputes, provided appropriate undertakings are furnished.
Undertakings and Safeguards Are Critical
Applicants seeking travel permission must be prepared to furnish undertakings to return to India as per their itinerary.
Providing contact details of relatives remaining in India can strengthen the case for travel permission, as it assures the Court of the applicant's intent to return.
Supreme Court Directions Must Be Followed
High Courts are bound by the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India & Ors. vs. Viraj Chetan Shah & Ors., which mandate expeditious disposal of travel permission applications.
Practitioners should ensure that applications for travel permission are filed well in advance, with all necessary details and undertakings, to facilitate timely disposal.
