NCLAT Declines Travel Permission To Bankrupt Individual As Basis For Travel Has Ceased

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has declined to grant relief to a bankrupt individual seeking permission to travel to the UAE, holding that once the work contract cited to justify such travel had expired, “the very basis” for seeking permission no longer survived.

The Tribunal was dealing with an appeal filed by Sunil Surendrabhai Kakkad, who was declared bankrupt on September 12, 2025, and was consequently barred from travelling abroad without prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority.

Disposing of the appeal, a coram of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey clarified that no relief could be granted even for a subsequent period sought in appeal once the underlying contract had lapsed.

"We, thus, are of the view that even if the prayer for any further travel can be considered in the Appeal as prayed, period of work order having lapsed, the very basis for praying for travel to abroad cannot be considered. We, however, are of the view that it shall be open for the Appellant to make a fresh application before the Adjudicating Authority, in event, there is any such circumstances or occasion arise for travel abroad.”

The appellant had challenged the NCLT Ahmedabad's order dated February 12, 2026, which had rejected his application seeking permission to travel to the UAE for business purposes. He relied on a purchase order dated February 10, 2025, issued by a UAE-based entity for implementation of ERP and IT systems, contending that his presence abroad was necessary for execution of the project.

He further sought permission to travel for business purposes up to September 2026, even though the original period sought before the NCLT had already expired.

Opposing the plea, the Bankruptcy Trustee contended that the period for which permission was originally sought had lapsed and that the purchase order itself had come to an end, rendering the appeal infructuous.

Examining the terms of the contract, the Appellate Tribunal noted that while the purchase order mentioned a duration of 13 months along with a six-month “parallel run,” the latter was not an extension but was intended to operate simultaneously with the main project. It also took note of the appellant's own pleading that the duration of the purchase order was 13 months.

Rejecting Kakkad's contention that the additional six months extended the contract beyond March 2026, the tribunal held that both components of the work were intended to run concurrently and that the contract stood concluded in March 2026.

In view of this, the tribunal held that once the work order had expired, the foundational basis for seeking permission to travel abroad no longer survived, and no relief could be granted even for a later period as sought in appeal.

However, it clarified that the appellant would be at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority afresh if any new circumstances arise warranting such travel.

Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.