Delhi High Court
Ritu Singal vs Bureau Of Immigration & Ors on 17 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 91, 92, 93, 25, 27, 29, 31, 95, 32, 33, 34, 35,
37, 38, 39, 44, 48, 49, 53, 56, 59, 61, 71, 72, 85 and 89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17.04.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:
7
+ W.P.(C) 17646/2022 and CM APPL. 5538/2023, CM APPL.
36789/2023
RITU SINGAL .....Petitioner
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION& ORS. ...Respondents
with
8
+ W.P.(C) 17647/2022
NEERAJ SINGAL .....Petitioner
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION& ORS. .....Respondents
10
+ W.P.(C) 1755/2023 and CM APPL. 6711/2023, CM APPL.
44687/2023, CM APPL. 44688/2023
KUNWER SACHDEV .....Petitioner
versus
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 1 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
UNION OFINDIAAND ORS. .....Respondents
13
+ W.P.(C) 7348/2023 and CM APPL. 28547/2023, CM APPL.
65247/2023
ARUPJYOTI RAI BARUAH .....Petitioner
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,
THROUGH COMMISSIONER
(IMMIGRATION) & ORS. .....Respondents
15
+ W.P.(C) 7484/2023 and CM APPL. 37361/2023, CM APPL.
12331/2025, CM APPL. 28333/2025, CM APPL. 34618/2025,
CM APPL. 44241/2025
RAGHU RAMA KRISHNA RAJU .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
17
+ W.P.(C) 9610/2023 and CM APPL. 36814/2023, CM APPL.
15072/2026
SHIVANI PRIYAM& ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 2 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
UNION OF INDIA& ANR. .....Respondents
18
+ W.P.(C) 10895/2023 and CM APPL. 60224/2023, CM APPL.
74501/2024, CM APPL. 24992/2026, CM APPL. 24993/2026
ASHOK MITTAL .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
91
+ W.P.(C) 1942/2023 and CM APPL. 7375/2023, CM APPL.
16406/2023
MR. NISSCHAL JAAIN .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
92
+ W.P.(C) 1962/2023 and CM APPL. 7514/2023, CM APPL.
16835/2023
MR. NISSCHAL JAAIN .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
93
+ W.P.(C) 16550/2023 and CM APPL. 66691/2023
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 3 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
SANJAY LAMBA .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
25
+ W.P.(C) 7503/2024and CM APPL. 31297/2024
SENTHIL NACHIAPPAN .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
27
+ W.P.(C) 8252/2024 and CM APPL. 33976/2024
VINITA RANI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
29
+ W.P.(C) 14518/2024 and CM APPL. 60811/2024
MANPREET SINGH CHADHA .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 4 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
31
+ W.P.(C) 16610/2024 and CM APPL. 15887/2025
ANIL BHALLA .....Petitioner
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT& ANR. .....Respondents
95
+ W.P.(C) 18812/2025 and CM APPL. 78282/2025
DHARAMVIR SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
32
+ W.P.(C) 1875/2025
GAURAV BHALLA .....Petitioner
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
& ANR. .....Respondents
33
+ W.P.(C) 950/2025 and CM APPL. 33832/2025, CM APPL.
2310/2026
GAUTAM BHALLA .....Petitioner
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT& ANR. .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 5 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
34
+ W.P.(C) 549/2025 and CM APPL. 2490/2025
PURNANGINI TREHAN .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
35
+ W.P.(C) 1304/2025 and CM APPL. 14877/2026
SIDHANT GUPTA .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. ....Respondents
37
+ W.P.(C) 3904/2025 and CM APPL. 18131/2025, CM APPL.
20275/2026
RAJEEV SRIVASTVA .....Petitioner
versus
SERIOUS FRAUDS INVESTIGATION
OFFICE AND ORS. ....Respondents
38
+ W.P.(C) 4065/2025 and CM APPL. 18907/2025
RISHI SEHDEV .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 6 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
39
+ W.P.(C) 4612/2025 and CM APPL. 21352/2025, CM APPL.
6005/2026
SHRI HARISH SINGHAL .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS& ORS.
.....Respondents
44
+ W.P.(C) 8859/2025
BALRAM SAINI& ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ANR. .....Respondents
48
+ W.P.(C) 11461/2025
SANJEEV SRIVASTVA .....Petitioner
versus
SERIOUS FRAUDS INVESTIGATION
OFFICE& ANR. .....Respondents
49
+ W.P.(C) 11972/2025
PRIYA SRIVASTVA .....Petitioner
versus
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 7 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
SERIOUS FRAUDS INVESTIGATION OFFICE
& ANR. .....Respondents
53
+ W.P.(C) 15146/2025 and CM APPL. 69910/2025, CM
APPL.16892/2026
CHARANJEET SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
56
+ W.P.(C) 19065/2025 and CM APPL. 14847/2026, CM APPL.
20164/2026
GAURAV MUNJAL .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
59
+ W.P.(C) 1196/2026and CM APPL. 5863/2026
PREM ADIP RISHI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
61
+ W.P.(C) 2799/2026
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 8 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
RATUL PURI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
71
+ W.P.(C) 4066/2026
RATUL PURI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
72
+ W.P.(C) 4310/2026
NITA PURI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
85
+ W.P.(C) 5086/2026and CM APPL. 24964/2026
NITA PURI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
89
+ W.P.(C) 5126/2026 and CM APPL. 25103/2026
RATUL PURI .....Petitioner
versus
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 9 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondents
Memo of Appearances:
On behalf of petitioners:
Mr. Manu Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Prachi Darji and Mr. Abhyuday
Sharma, Advs. in W.P.(C) 1755/2023.
Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Mr. Anshay Shandilya ,
Advocates in W.P.(C) 7348/2023.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Ms. Katyayani Vajpayee,
Mr. Lakshay Yadav, Advs. in WP(C) - 10895/2023.
Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Sachin Midha, Mr. Aditya Vikram Bajpai,
Advocates in W.P.(C) NO. 7503/2024.
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Pankush Goyal, Mr. Vishal Gourav, Mr.
Yash Agrawal, Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Ms. Barkha Rastogi,
Advocates in W.P.(C) 4310/2026 and W.P.(C) 5086/2026.
Mr. Geetansh Bharti and Mr. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates in W.P.(C)
17646/2022.
Mr. Geetansh Bharti and Mr. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates in W.P.(C)
17647/2022.
Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Advocate in W.P. 8252/2024.
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Arjun Nanda & Mr. Hardeek Goyal, Advs. in
W.P.(C) No. 14518/2024.
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Adv., Mr.
Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mr. AyushSachan, Adv., Ms. Pooja
Deepak, Adv., Mr. Khush, Adv. Mr. SougatPati Ms. Rushika Patil
Ms. Ria Yadav Mr. Nav Teji, Advs in WP(C) - 16610/2024.
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mr.
AyushSachan, Ms. Pooja Deepak, Mr. Khush, Advocates in W.P.(C)
No. 1875/2025.
Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr.
Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mr. AyushSachan, Ms. Pooja Deepak, Mr.
Khush, Ms. Vismita Diwan, Advocates in W.P.(C) 950/2025.
Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Anish Dewan, Mr. Nikhil Goel,
Advocates in W.P.(C) 549/2025.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 10 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Manit Walia, Advs. in W.P.(C) No.
1304/2025.
Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jaispriya Poly, adv. in
W.P.(C) No. 3904/2025.
Mr. Ashish Chauhan Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Advocates in W.P.(C)
4065/2025.
Mr. Deepank Yadav, Adv. in W.P.(c) 4612/2025.
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Arjun Nanda and Mr. Hardeek Goyal, Advs. in
W.P. (C) No. 15146/2025.
Mr. Bharat Chugh, Maj. Nirvikar Singh (Retd.), Mr. Maanish
Choudhary, Mr. Jai Allagh, Advs. in W.P.(C) No. 19065/2025.
Mr. Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vikrant Suri, Mr. Abhyudaya
Shankar Bajpai Adv, SohumDua Adv, Mr. Ghunaim Siddiqui, Ms.
Manvi, Ms. Saloni Ray, Mr. Pankush Goyal, Advocates in
W.P.C/2799/2026.
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal and Ms Vishakha Kaushik,
Advocates in W.P.(C) 16550/2023.
Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Mr Praveen Chaturvedi, Ms Jyoti Chaturvedi and
Mr Tarun Kumar, Advocates in WP(C) 18812/2025.
Mr. Shubhendu Bhattacharyya and Mr. ShubhitShokeen, Advocates in
W.P.(C) 9610/2023, W.P.(C) 11461/2025 and W.P.(C) 11972/2025.
Mr. VartulVishnoi, Mr. Nimish Chib Advocates in W.P.(C) 1942/2023
and W.P.(C) 1962/2023.
Mr. ArshdeepSingh Khurana, Ms. Neha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr.
VishvendraTomar, Ms. NishthaJuneja, Mr. Sulakshan VS, Mr.
Himanshu Kasturi, Ms. Shivani Sharma and Ms. Vidisha Bajaj,
Advocates in W.P.(C) 1196/2026.
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Pankush Goyal, Mr. Vishal Gourav, Mr.
Yash Agrawal, Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Ms. Barkha Rastogi,
Advocates in W.P.(C) 5126/2026.
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Mr. AyushSachan, Advocates in W.P.(C)
4066/2026.
On behalf of respondents:
Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Amulya
Dev Mishra Advocates in W.P.(C) 17646/2022.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar SPC With Mr. Sunil, Advocates for UOI in
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 11 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
W.P.(C) 17646/2022.
Mr Anupam S Sharrma with Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr Vashisht Rao
&Ms Amisha P Dash, Advocates for CBI. in W.P.(C) 17646/2022
Mr Anupam S Sharrma with Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr Vashisht Rao &
Ms Amisha P Dash, Advocates. in W.P.(C) 17647/2022.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar SPC With Mr. Sunil, Adv. in W.P.(C) 17647/2022.
Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Amulya
Dev Mishra Advocates for R-1 in W.P.(C) 17647/2022.
Mr. Kush Sharma, Standing Counsel, Ms. Asiya Khan, Mr. Nishchay
Nigam and Ms. Niharika Tanwar Advocates for respondent/ Bank of
Baroda in W.P.(C) 1755/2023.
Mr. AkshitKapur, AoR along with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocate for R-3
in W.P.(C) 1755/2023.
Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP CBI with Mr. Aryan Rakesh, Adv for
Respondent- CBI in W.P.(C) 1755/2023.
Mr RachitBigghe, Advocate for R-6 in W.P.(C) 1755/2023.
Mr. VK Gupta Advocate for R-8 in W.P.(C) 1755/2023.
Mr. Brijesh k Tamber, Ms Chanchala Kumari, Advs for R-3 in WP(C)
No.7484/2023.
Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC along with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate for
UOI in WP(C) No.7484/2023.
Mr Anupam S Sharrma with Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr Vashisht Rao &
Ms Amisha P Dash, Advocates for CBI in WP(C) No.7484/2023.
Mr. AkshitKapur, AoR along with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocate in
WP(C) No.7484/2023.
Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC Ms. Kavya Shukla Adv. Mr. Vineet Negi
Adv. Mr. Vibhav V. Nath Adv. Ms. Theresa Adv. in W.P.(C)
9610/2023.
Mr.Ishkaran Singh Bhandari CGSC & Mr Piyush Yadav, Adv. for
UOI in WP(C) 7503/2024.
Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh,
Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Mr. Sumit Chanchal, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar,
Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms Saumya, Mr. Nitin & Ms. Nisha, Advocates for R-3
in WP(C) 7503/2024.
Mr. OP Gaggar and Mr. SachindraKarn, Advocates in in WP(C)
7503/2024.
Mr.Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel counsel, GNCTD , Ms. Purnima Jain
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 12 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
& Mr. Madhur, Advs. in WP(C) 8252/2024.
Mr. Ripudamn Bhardwaj, CGSC,SPP, Mr.KushagraKansal, Mr. Amit
Kumar Rana, Advs. for CBI in WP(C) 8252/2024.
Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, Adv. for R-3 in WP(C) 8252/2024.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. AyushTanwar,
Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr.UjjwalTyagi. in W.P.(C)-
1875/2025.
Mr. ChetanyaPuri, SPC along with Ms Vidhi Gupta and Mr. Rishab
Jain, Advs. for R-1 and 2 in W.P (C) 549/2025.
Mr Arun Aggarwal with Mr LoveleshKukreja, Advs. for R-3 in
W.P.(C) 549/2025.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, ADV Mr.
AyushTanwar, Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr. Kushagra Malik,
Adv, Mr.UjjwalTyagi, Advocates in W.P.(C)-1304/2025.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Adv Mr.
AyushTanwar, Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr. Kushagra Malik,
Adv, Mr.Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocates for SFIO in W.P.(C) 3904/2025 and
W.P.(C) 11461/2025.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. AyushTanwar,
Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik and Mr.Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs.
for UOI in W.P.(C) 4065/2025.
Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Ms. Ms. Easha Gurung, JSC for R-2 in
W.P.(C) 4065/2025.
Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for Central Bank of India in W.P.(C)
4066/2026.
Mr. Sanjay Bajaj and Mr. Rajat Prakash, Advocates for R-4 and 5 in
W.P.(C) 4066/2026.
Mr Ishkaran Singh Bhandari CGSC and Mr Piyush Yadav, Adv.
forUOI in WP(C) 4612/2025.
Mr Arun Aggarwal with Mr LoveleshKukreja, Advs for R-4 in WP(C)
4612/2025.
Mr. Shlok Chandra Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms Naincy Jain Jr Standing
Counsel, Ms Madhavi Shukla Jr Standing Counsel ,Mr.Udit Dad,
Advocates in WP (C) No. 8859/2025.
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, GP, Ms.
Khyaati, Advs. in WP(C) 11972/2025.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC and Ms. Maanya Saxena,
Advocate in Wp(c) 15146/2025.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 13 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv(CGSC)(UOI), Mr. Akshit Mohan, Advocates
(GP), Mr. Shashwat, Advocates in WP(C) 19065/2025.
Mr Premtosh K Mishra CGSC, Mr Shrey Sharma Adv, Mr Anubhav
Upadhyay Adv, Mr Arpit Bamal, Advocates in W.P.(C)1196/2026.
Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, SC Indian Bank And BOB for R-2 and 3 in
W. P. (C)1196/2026.
Ms. Nidhi Ramam CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for UOI in
W.P.(C) 2799/2026.
Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Senior Standing Counsel for R-4 in W.P.(C)
2799/2026.
Ms. Arushi Singh (SPC for UOI) with Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms.
Amrisha Kumari & Mr. Abhinav Vijayaran, Advocates for R 1 to 3 in
W.P.(C) 4310/2026.
Mr. Sanjay Bajaj and Mr. Rajat Prakash, Advocates for R-5 in
W.P.(C) 4310/2026.
Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for the Central Bank Of India/ R-4 in
W.P.(C) 4310/2026.
Mr Satya Ranjan Swain (CGSC) & Mr KautilyaBirat, Advocates for
R-1 and 3 in W.P.(C) 5086/2026.
Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh,
Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Mr. Sumit Chanchal, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar,
Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms. Saumya, Mr. Nitin & Ms. Nisha Advocates for R-
2/ Union Bank of India in W.P.(C) 5086/2026.
Ms. Nidhi Ramam CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr.
Akshamishra, Advs. in W.P.(C) 5126/2026.
Mr. Kush Sharma, Standing Counsel with Ms.Asiya Khan, Mr.
Nishchay Nigam and Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Advocates in W.P.(C)
5126/2026.
Mr. Shashank Dixit Adv. CGSC , Mr. Kunal Raj Advocate for UOI in
W.P(C)1942/2023.
Mr. AkshitKapur, AoR along with Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates for SBI
in W.P(C)1942/2023.
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr.
Amit Kumar Rana, Advs., UOI. in W.P.(C) - 18812/2025.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar (SC), Mr. Aakarsh Mishra, Ms. Vaishnavi Bhargav,
Mr. Akshat Khanna, Mr. Karsh SaroshRebalo, Advocates for ED. in
W.P.(C) 16610/2024, W.P.(C) 1875/2025 and W.P.(C) 950/2025
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. AyushTanwar,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 14 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr.Ujjwal Tyagi. Advocates
for UOI in W.P.(C) 16610/2024. and W.P.(C) 950/2025
Mr. Mr. Vibhav V. Nath, Ms. Theresa, Advocates for UOI. in W.P.(C)
7348/2023
Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, Advocates for R-2 and 3 in W.P.(C)
7348/2023.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP CBI in in W.P.(C) 7348/2023.
Mr.PiyushBeriwal and Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocates for UOI in
W.P.(C) 16550/2023.
Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh,
Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Mr. Sumit Chanchal, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar,
Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms Saumya, Mr. Nitin & Ms. Nisha Advocates for
Respondent/ Bank in W.P.(C) 16550/2023.
Counsel (appearance not given) in W.P.(C) 14518/2024.
Mr. Vipul Agrawal (Sr. Standing Counsel), Ms. Sakshi Shairwal (Jr.
Standing Counsel), Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan, Adv., Ms. Harshita Kotru,
Advocates for Revenue in WP(C) - 10895/2023.
Dr. Ravinder Kumar Anand, Advocate for impleader in WP(C) -
10895/2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
INDEX
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND………………………………….. 17
B. THE LAW OF LOCS ………………………………………………………………… 18
C. ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………….. 35
I. LOCS ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS/BANKS …………………………………………………………….. 35
(i) W.P.(C) 7348/2023 ………………………………………………………………. 35
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 15 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
(ii) W.P.(C) 16550/2023 ……………………………………………………………. 36
(iii) W.P.(C) 7484/2023 …………………………………………………………….. 37
(iv) W.P.(C) 8252/2024 …………………………………………………………….. 38
(v) W.P.(C)549/2025 ………………………………………………………………… 38
(vi) W.P.(C) 1304/2025 …………………………………………………………….. 39
(vii) W.P.(C) 7503/2024 ……………………………………………………………. 41
(viii) W.P.(C) 4612/2025 …………………………………………………………… 42
(ix) W.P.(C) 4310/2026 AND 5086/2026 …………………………………….. 44
(x) W.P.(C) 4066/2026 AND W.P.(C) 5126/2026 …………………………. 47
(xi) W.P.(C) 1196/2026 …………………………………………………………….. 49
II. LOCS ISSUED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCIES AND
MINISTERIES ……………………………………………………………………………. 53
(xii) W.P.(C) 9610/2023, W.P.(C) 3904/2025, W.P.(C) 11461/2025
AND W.P.(C) 11972/2025 …………………………………………………………. 53
(xiii) W.P.(C) 10895/2023 …………………………………………………………. 54
(xiv) W.P.(C) 1942/2023 AND W.P.(C) 1962/2023 ………………………. 55
(xv) W.P.(C) 950/2025AND W.P.(C) 16610/2024 ………………………… 56
(xvi) W.P.(C) 8859/2025 …………………………………………………………… 57
(xvii) W.P.(C) 4065/2025 ………………………………………………………….. 58
(xviii)W.P.(C) 1875/2025 ………………………………………………………….. 59
(xix) W.P.(C)19065/2025 ………………………………………………………….. 60
(xx) W.P.(C) 15146/2025 AND W.P.(C) 14518/2024 ……………………. 61
(xxi) W.P.(C) 2799/2026 …………………………………………………………… 62
III. APPROPRIATINESS OF RELEGATING THE PETITIONER TO
THE FORUM THAT ISSUED THE LOC ……………………………………….. 65
(xxii). W.P.(C) 17646/2022 AND 17647/2022 ……………………………… 67
(xxiii) W.P.(C) 1755/2023 …………………………………………………………. 69
(xxiv) W.P.(C) 18812/2025………………………………………………………… 70
D. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………….. 72
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 16 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. This batch of petitions has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, all converging upon a single, pressing legal
question, namely, whether the issuance and continuation of Look Out
Circulars (hereinafter “LOCs”), a coercive executive measure directly
imperilling the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, is legally
sustainable in the circumstances evinced in each of these petitions.
While the individual facts of each petition present their own discrete
matrix, the overarching legal issues are common, and it is, therefore,
appropriate to take up these petitions together for a comprehensive
adjudication by this common judgment.
2. The present order disposes of 33 writ petitions concerning the
validity, or the lack thereof, of the LOCs issued at the behest of
financial institutions, investigative agencies, and govt.
departments/authorities. The oldest petition in the present batch,
namely, W.P.(C) 17646/2022 was instituted on 15.12.2022, and is
getting disposed of, vide the present order, after a period of
approximately 3.5 years. The Court in the said petition has passed 23
interim orders, and on 3 occasions, the Court has passed orders
allowing the petitioner‟s travel abroad. Cumulatively, in all the
petitions combined about 612 orders have been passed, including
approximately 110 orders where permission to travel abroad has been
granted. Naturally, for the said orders, consequent orders/directions
have also been passed by the concerned Registrar.In none of these
cases have the petitioners absconded or fled from the country. Neither
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 17 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
has any attempt to do so been alleged, nor does any such material find
place on record.
3. These writ petitions have been categorised into three broad
classes for the purposes of discussion, analysis, and disposal, namely:
Category A — cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued
solely at the instance of financial institutions; Category B — cases
where the Look Out Circular has been issuedat the instance of
ministries and investigating agencies; and Category C — cases where
petitioner is relegated to the forum that issued LOC.Each category
raises distinct, though interrelated, legal issues which shall be
addressed in the appropriate sequence in this judgment.
4. Comprehensive survey of the constitutional and statutory
foundations governing the right to travel, the historical and regulatory
evolution of the LOC regime in India, the relevant Office Memoranda
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs („MHA‟), and the
authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India and
various High Courts on the subject is imperative for laying down, in
clear and unambiguous terms, the governing constitutional and legal
principles that shall inform and guide the disposal of this batch of
petitions.
B. THE LAW OF LOCs
5. The Constitution of India, in its majestic sweep, guarantees to
every person the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21,
which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 18 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
liberty except according to procedure established by law. The right to
travel both within the country and abroad, has been recognised as an
integral and constitutionally protected facet of this fundamental
guarantee.
6. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant
Passport Officer,1 the Supreme Court authoritatively declared that the
right to travel abroad is a constitutionally protected right inhering in
the concept of personal liberty under Article 21. Passport, being the
instrument through which such right is exercised, it was held by the
Court, that it cannot be withheld arbitrarily or without authority of law.
7. The constitutional dimensions of this right were elaborated and
crystallised in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.2 Unequivocally, it
was held that the procedure for depriving a person of his personal
liberty must not be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable. No person can be
deprived of his right to travel abroad unless there is a law made by the
State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him, and the
deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. In
toto, the said authority categorically rejected the notion that the
guarantee of Article 21 can be satisfied by any procedure, however
oppressive or unjust. The procedure must conform to the norms of
natural justice, due process, fairness, and reasonableness.
8. In the sphere of foreign jurisprudence, the same constitutional
1
AIR 1967 SC 1836.
2
(1978) 1 SCC 248.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 19 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
sentiment finds expression in Kent v. Dulles,3 where the United States
Supreme Court recognised freedom of movement across frontiers as a
vital incident of individual liberty, deeply embedded within the
nation‟s constitutional heritage, emphasising its intimate connection
with personal choice and human dignity. While this decision pertains
to a different constitutional order, the values it articulates are of the
inviolability of the freedom to travel as an attribute of personal liberty,
and are universally shared and have resonance in the Indian
constitutional framework.
9. The Constitutional framework, therefore, affirms that the right
to travel abroad is not a mere statutory entitlement but a fundamental
constitutional right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. Any
restriction on this right must satisfy the triple test enunciated in
Maneka Gandhi: (i) it must be founded on a law duly enacted by the
competent legislature; (ii) the procedure prescribed by such law must
be just, fair, and reasonable; and (iii) the law and the procedure must
not violate any of the other fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. Executive action, even if authorised by administrative
instructions, cannot be a substitute for legislative mandate when it
comes to the possible curtailment of fundamental rights.
10. The concept of a Look Out Circular is not a creature of statute.
It has its origins in executive instructions issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs. The earliest instructions in this regard emanated from a
letter issued by the MHA dated 05.09.1979, which authorised various
3
357 U.S. 116 (1958).
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 20 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
agencies to monitor the arrival and departure of Indian citizens as well
as foreigners at immigration checkpoints. This early framework was
essentially surveillance-oriented and did not specifically address the
circumstances under which an LOC could be issued to prevent the
departure of a person from the country.
11. A more structured and systematic framework was introduced by
the Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2000 issued by the MHA, which
was confined in its application to Indian citizens. This memorandum
laid down guidelines for the issuance of LOCs but remained limited in
its scope and did not fully address the procedural safeguards necessary
for the protection of the fundamental right to travel.
12. A significant development in the jurisprudence governing LOCs
occurred in 2010, when this Court, through coordinate benches, took
up the question of the legal framework governing the issuance of
LOCs. In Vikram Sharma v. Union of India,4 and more significantly
in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director,5 the Court addressed a
reference on the legal framework and answered several foundational
questions governing the issuance of LOCs.
13. In Sumer Singh Salkan, the Court authoritatively held that an
LOC can be issued only in cases involving cognizable offences under
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) or other penal laws, and only
where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing
before the trial Court despite non-bailable warrants („NBWs‟) and
4
2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475.
5
2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 21 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
other coercive measures, and there was a likelihood of the accused
leaving the country to evade trial or arrest. The Court further held that:
(A) an LOC may be issued in cognizable offences where the accused
is deliberately evading arrest; (B) the Investigating Officer must make
a written request to the competent officer, and only the competent
officer can direct opening of an LOC by a speaking order; (C) the
person against whom an LOC is issued must join investigation or
surrender before the Court, or satisfy the Court that the LOC was
wrongly issued, and may also approach the originating authority for
withdrawal; and (D) an LOC is a coercive measure and the jurisdiction
of subordinate courts in affirming or cancelling an LOC is
commensurate with their jurisdiction in relation to NBWs.
14. In consonance with the judicial guidance provided by Sumer
Singh Salkan, the MHA issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum
dated 27.10.2010, which confined the issuance of LOCs to cases
involving cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal statutes.
Non-cognizable matters were restricted to intimation of travel
movements only, and the person could not be detained or prevented
from leaving. The 2010 OM also specified the category of
persons/authorities who could make requests for opening an LOC,
including Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive
Officers of public sector banks, a provision which has subsequently
been subjected to severe constitutional challenge, as detailed later in
this judgment.
15. The MHA revisited and further refined the LOC regime through
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 22 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
the Office Memorandum dated 05.12.2017, which introduced a new
category of exceptional cases, authorising the issuance of LOCs even
in matters not involving cognizable offences, where the departure of a
person was considered prejudicial to the sovereignty, security, or
integrity of India, its bilateral relations, strategic or economic interests,
or the larger public interest. Further modifications were effected by the
Office Memoranda dated 19.09.2018 and 12.10.2018. It is important to
emphasise that this exceptional category was introduced as a narrow,
residual power to be exercised in truly exceptional circumstances and
not as a general power to be routinely invoked.
16. In order to consolidate and streamline the LOC regime, the
MHA issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021
(hereinafter “2021 OM”), which, in supersession of all earlier
guidelines, presently governs the law with respect to the issuance of
LOCs. The 2021 OM is the primary regulatory instrument for the
purposes of the present adjudication. The relevant provisions of the
2021 OM are as under:
“(H) Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or
other penal laws. The details in column IV in the enclosed proforma
regarding ‘reason for opening LOC’ must invariably be provided without
which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detained.
(I) In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC or other
penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented
from leaving the country. The originating agency can only request that
they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases.
(L) In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as may
not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person
from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities
mentioned in clause (B) above, if it appears to such authority based on
inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to theSignature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 23 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is
detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic
and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave,
he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the
State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger
public interest at any given point in time.”
17. Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM included the Chairman,
Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector
banks within the list of authorities who could make requests for the
opening of an LOC. This provision, along with the equivalent clause in
the 2010 OM, has been the subject of extensive constitutional
litigation and has been found to be unconstitutional by the Bombay
High Court, as discussed in the following section.
18. In Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration,6 the
Madras High Court held that an LOC is a coercive executive measure
which directly impinges upon personal liberty and, therefore, cannot
be issued in a mechanical or routine manner. It was observed that
under the governing guidelines, an LOC can be resorted only when
there exists tangible material indicating deliberate evasion of arrest or
a real likelihood of the individual fleeing the country. The Court
emphasised that the mere existence of a criminal case or investigation
is not sufficient to justify the issuance of an LOC, there must be
specific, credible material to demonstrate a real and proximate threat
of absconding.
19. The most consequential judicial pronouncement for the
6
2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 24 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
purposes of the present batch of petitions is the decision of the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah v.
Union of India,7 decided on 23.04.2024. The lead matter arose from a
batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the
provisions of the 2010 OM and the 2021 OM that enabled the
Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of
public sector banks to seek the issuance of LOCs against defaulting
borrowers, thereby restraining their right to travel abroad.
20. The petitioners in Viraj Chetan Shah contended that such
executive instructions permitted a grave curtailment of personal
liberty, a fundamental right under Article 21, without any statutory
backing or prescribed procedural safeguard, in violation of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution. They urged that the right to travel abroad is
an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty, and cannot be
restricted by executive fiat, particularly in matters arising out of civil
or commercial defaults.
21. The Division Bench, upon a thorough consideration of the
constitutional issues, held as follows: (i) the right to travel abroad is an
integral component of the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21, and any restriction upon it must be founded on law and
must follow a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable; (ii)
fundamental rights cannot be curtailed through executive instructions
alone, in the absence of a governing statute or a controlling statutory
framework; (iii) the Office Memoranda, viewed in their entirety, could
7
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 25 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
not be characterised as per se arbitrary or unconstitutional, so as to
warrant their wholesale invalidation; however, (iv) the inclusion of
Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of all
public sector banks under Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM (equivalent
to Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 OM) was held to be bad in law, being
arbitrary and unreasonable, founded on an improper and invalid
classification, and resulting in the conferment of uncanalised,
unguided, and excessive power upon bank officials to seek restrictions
on personal liberty without any statutory guidance or procedural
safeguards.
22. It is further noted that a Special Leave Petition has been filed
before the Supreme Court of India assailing the said decision;
however, the order of the Bombay High Court has not been stayed,
and, therefore, continues to hold the field.
23. The decision in Viraj Chetan Shah was applied and followed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sahil Chugh v. Union of
India.8 The Court held that an LOC issued at the behest of a public
sector bank against borrowers or directors merely on account of loan
default or declaration as wilful defaulters, in the absence of any
criminal proceedings, is unsustainable in law. The Court emphasised
that the expression “detrimental to the economic interests of India”
under the MHA guidelines is meant for exceptional cases involving
grave, systemic, or national economic impact, and not routine
commercial defaults. Since no FIR, charge-sheet, or cognizable8
2024:DHC:5203.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 26 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
offence was pending against the petitioner therein, and the disputes
were purely civil and pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
(„DRT‟), the Court quashed the LOC as arbitrary and disproportionate.
24. The judgment in Sahil Chugh was challenged before the
Division Bench of this Court in Bank of Baroda v. Sahil Chugh.9 The
Division Bench dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the single judge‟s
conclusion. The Division Bench held that: (i) the mere inability to
repay a debt, without there being a criminal case, cannot be a reason to
deprive a citizen of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21;
(ii) the term “detrimental to economic interest”requires a finding of
grave and systemic impact on the national economy, not routine
commercial default; (iii) the circumstances surrounding issuance of an
LOC must reveal a higher gravity and a larger impact on the country;
and (iv) in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Viraj
Chetan Shah quashing the very power and jurisdiction of public
sector banks to seek issuance of LOCs, there cannot be any restriction
on the travel of respondents.
25. In Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India,10 this Court
quashed an LOC issued at the instance of Bank of Baroda (“BOB”),
holding that the LOC had been issued against the petitioner solely
because of the inability of a company to repay its debts for which the
petitioner stood as guarantor. There were no criminal proceedings
against the petitioner, and no allegation that the petitioner was
9
2025 SCC OnLine Del 9282.
10
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4153.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 27 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
instrumental in defalcation or siphoning off of money. The Court was
emphatic that after the bank had already resorted to all remedies
available in law, it could not open an LOC as an “arm-twisting
tactic”to recover debt from a person who is otherwise unable to pay,
more so when there were no allegations of fraud or siphoning.
26. In Apurve Goel v. Bureau of Immigration,11 this Court laid
down the important proposition that Look Out Circulars cannot be
opened merely on the request of banks. There has to be some
independent application of mind by the authority concerned before
opening an LOC, since opening of an LOC results in restraining a
person’s right to travel abroad. The authority opening the LOC must
satisfy itself that the departure of the person would be detrimental to
the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to bilateral relations,
or to the economic interests of India, or that departure of such person
ought not to be permitted in the larger public interest.
27. In Shalini Khanna v. Union of India,12 this Court elaborated
upon the term “detrimental to the economic interests”, and declared it
to be of such a magnitude that it can significantly affect the economic
interests of the country. The issuance of an LOC cannot be resorted to
in every case of bank loan defaults and that the fundamental right of a
citizen to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to
pay a bank loan, especially where the person against whom the LOC is
opened has not been arrayed as an accused in any offence for
11
2023:DHC:6886.
12
2024 SCC OnLine Del 837.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 28 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
misappropriation or siphoning.
28. In Anastasiia Pivtsaeva &Anr. v. Union of India &Ors.,13 this
Court held that mere association or a familial relationship with an
accused, absent any concrete material showing direct involvement or
complicity in the alleged offence, cannot justify adverse action such as
the denial of security clearance or the continuation of coercive
measures such as an LOC. This principle has direct bearing in cases
where LOCs have been issued against persons based merely on their
status as directors, guarantors, or family members of borrowers.
29. The jurisprudence in this area has been further consolidated and
synthesised by a series of decisions of this Court. In Puja Chadha v.
Directorate of Enforcement,14 this Court, relying on Prashant Bothra
v. Bureau of Immigration,15Dhruv Tewari v. Directorate of
Enforcement,16Sumer Singh Salkan; Brij Bhushan Kathuria v.
Union of India,17 and Anastasiia Pivtsaeva, held that the power to
issue an LOC is an exceptional and coercive measure which has a
direct bearing on an individual‟s fundamental right to travel, and
therefore must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. In
Sandeep Dhanuka v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,18 the Court
undertook a comprehensive examination of the LOC regime and its
various facets, including the circumstances of issuance, continuation,
13
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170.
14
2025:DHC:8787.
15
2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2643.
16
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1893.
17
2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587.
18
2025 SCC OnLine Del 8280.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 29 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
and judicial review. Importantly, in para. 19 and 20 the Court held as
under:
“19.It is now a settled law that opening of an LOC has a very serious
effect on a person’s fundamental right to travel abroad which is on the
face of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said right to travel
cannot be curtailed without following due process. It is also settled law
that recourse to LOC can be taken by the Investigating Agencies
primarily when there is a cognizable offence under IPC or in any other
penal laws or where the accused is deliberately evading the arrest and
not appearing before Court despite summons being served on him or
issuance of non- bailable warrants or when other coercive measures
have been taken by the Court to ensure his appearance in the Court and
that there is likelihood of the accused to leave the country to evade such
trial or arrest.
20.The LOCs are also being issued at the instance of Investigating
Agencies where apprehension is raised by the Investigating Agencies that
the person who is alleged of committing an offence might escape the
clutches of law by leaving the country. However, the law is also getting
crystallized that merely because there are some revenue implications, the
LOC cannot be opened against a person. A Single Bench of this Court
in Priya Parameswaram Pillai v. Union of Inidia [2015 VII AD (Delhi)
10] has held that merely because there were some revenue implications
due to notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities, the violations of tax
laws are not demonstrative of the fact that the Petitioner therein had
acted inimical to the economic interests of the country”.
30. It has been held by this Court in Brij Bhushan Kathuria, that an
LOC has the effect of seriously jeopardising the right to travel of an
individual, and that the settled legal position as per Sumer Singh
Salkan is that unless and until there is an FIR lodged or a criminal
case pending, an LOC cannot be issued. Phrases such as “economic
interest” or “larger public interest” cannot be expanded to include an
Independent Director who was in the past associated with the company
being investigated, without any specific role being attributed to him.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 30 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
31. Most recently, this Court in Anant Raj Kannoria v. Union of
India &Anr.,19Maria Ramesh v. Union of India &Ors.,20 and
RitwickDutta v. Union of India &Ors.,21 has examined various
aspects of the legal framework governing the issuance of LOCs. In
Anant Raj Kannoria, this Court held as under:
“23. In such circumstances, the continued restraint imposed upon the
petitioner by way of the LOC operates as an unwarranted restriction on
his personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21of the
Constitution without any contemporaneous justification. The mechanical
continuation of the LOC, despite the absence of necessity of the
petitioner for investigation at this stage, renders the restraint prima facie
arbitrary, particularly when the petitioner has neither evaded the process
of law nor shown any inclination to obstruct the investigation.”
32. In Vineet Gupta &Anr. v. Union of India &Ors.,22this Court
synthesised the entire arc of judicial evolution on the issue of LOC and
laid down, the following governing principles:
(i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a substantial
impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral facet
of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Consequently, the power to issue an LOC must be
exercised sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only upon
satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing Office
Memoranda;
(ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable offence
under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible material
demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately evading arrest or
judicial process, or that there exists a real and proximate likelihood of
absconding;
(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the Office
Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed and may be
exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where the proposed19
W.P.(C) 3313/2023 decided on 09.01.2026.
20
W.P.(C) 15701/2022 decided on 27.01.2026.
21
W.P.(C) 12862/2023 decided on 02.02.2026.
22 2026:DHC:1616 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 11:49:35 Page 31 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
departure of the subject poses a clear and grave threat to the
sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to its strategic or economic
interests in a national or systemic sense, or the larger public interest;
(iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing Director, or
Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks, would not withstand the
scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus, as of now, the LOC issued to
Public Sector Banks cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed;
(v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to subject the
issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny, balancing the
legitimate interests of the State with the individual’s fundamental rights,
and to quash such circulars where the restraint imposed is found to be
arbitrary, disproportionate, lacking in statutory backing, or violative of
the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process. Ultimately,
the burden lies squarely upon the „originating agencies‟ to justify the
necessity, proportionality, and legality of the restraint, failing which such
action cannot be sustained. Pertinent to observe that the continuance of
an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically reviewed. Where it is
evident from the record that the subject has cooperated with the
investigation, has not evaded the process of law, and where no further
interrogation or presence is demonstrably required, the continued
operation of an LOC would amount to an unreasonable and unjustified
restriction on personal liberty;
(vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ Court is not
the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available to a person
against whom a LOC has been issued. As held in Sumer Singh Salkan, a
person against whom a LOC is issued is, in the first instance, required to
join the investigation or surrender before the jurisdictional Court, or
otherwise satisfy the Court that the LOC is unwarranted. The individual
may also approach the authority which ordered issuance of the LOC and
seek its withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or non-application of
mind. An LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may
also be rescinded or modified by the trial Court or the Court having
jurisdiction over the concerned police station, upon an appropriate
application.
33. On a conspectus of constitutional provisions, the regulatory
framework, and the entire body of judicial opinion surveyed above,
this Court distils the following governing legal principles for the
issuance, continuance, and judicial review of Look Out Circulars:
34. First,the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 32 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Any restriction on this right must be founded on law,
must follow a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable, and must not
violate any other fundamental right. Executive instructions cannot be a
substitute for legislative mandate for the possible restriction of
fundamental rights. Second, an LOC is a coercive executive measure
of last resort. It is not a routine tool for law enforcement or debt
recovery. Recourse to an LOC may be taken only in cases involving a
cognizable offence under the IPC or other penal laws, where the
accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing before the trial
Court despite NBWs and other coercive measures, and there is a real
and proximate likelihood of absconding.
35. Third, public sector banks, through their Chairman, Managing
Directors, or Chief Executive Officers, do not possess legal authority
to seek the opening of an LOC. Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM
(equivalent to Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 OM), which conferred such
power upon bank officials, stands quashed by decisions of both this
Court and the Bombay High Court.
36. Fourth, mere inability to repay a debt, without there being a
criminal case, cannot be a reason to deprive a citizen of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. The issuance of an
LOC cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan default or credit
facility availed for business purposes. Where the person against whom
the LOC is opened has not been arrayed as an accused in any offence
for misappropriation or siphoning, the LOC cannot be sustained. Fifth,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 33 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
the power under Clause 6(L) of the 2021 OM to issue an LOC in cases
detrimental to the “economic interests of India” is to be narrowly
construed and must be exercised only in rare and compelling
circumstances where the proposed departure poses a clear and grave
threat to the national or systemic economic interests of India, not in
cases of routine commercial default or individual business failure. The
quantum of the alleged default and the nature of the loss must be
assessed to determine whether it genuinely imperils the national
economic interest.
37. Sixth, the authority charged with opening an LOC must apply
its mind independently and cannot act as a mere instrument of the
originating agency. There must be a speaking order, based on specific
and credible inputs, justifying the necessity of the restraint. A
mechanical or pro forma compliance with the originating authority‟s
request cannot satisfy this requirement. Seventh, an LOC cannot be
issued against a person merely on account of his status as a director,
guarantor, shareholder, or family member of a defaulting borrower, in
the absence of specific material demonstrating his direct and personal
role in the alleged wrongdoing. Guilt is personal and not vicarious in
civil or criminal liability.
38. Eighth, the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite. It must be
periodically reviewed and must be withdrawn when its purpose has
been served. Where the subject has cooperated with the investigation,
has not evaded process, and where no further interrogation or presence
is required, the continued operation of an LOC amounts to an
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 34 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty. Ninth,
while the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is duty-bound to
subject LOCs to strict judicial scrutiny, the Writ Court is not the
exclusive forum for challenge. A person against whom an LOC has
been issued may, in the first instance, approach the originating
authority for withdrawal, or approach the trial Court for its rescission
or modification. However, where these remedies are inadequate or
ineffectual, the writ jurisdiction is clearly available. Tenth, the burden
of justifying the necessity, proportionality, and legality of an LOC lies
squarely upon the originating agency. In the absence of such
justification, the LOC cannot be sustained. Courts must not accept
bald assertions of security concerns or economic interest without
requiring the originating agency to place credible material before the
Court.
C. ANALYSIS
I. LOCs ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS/BANKS
(i) W.P.(C) 7348/2023
39. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashingof the LOC issued against him and permission to travel
abroad.It is the case of the petitioner that the sole basis for issuance
and continuation of the LOC is his alleged association as a Director
and Guarantor of M/s Margdarshak Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
(“MFSPL”), which had availed credit facilities from the respondent
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 35 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
Bank.
40. The outstanding loan liability against MFSPL stands at Rs.
218.67 crores as per the Financial Audit Report dated 21.09.2022, and
the loan account of MFSPL was subsequently declared as „Fraud‟ by
the respondent Bank on 22.11.2022. Consequent thereto, the LOC
against the petitioner came to be issued by the Managing Director and
Chief Executive Officer of Punjab National Bank vide reference dated
10.03.2023.
41. It is pertinent to note that no FIR or Criminal Investigation is
pending against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid loan
account. The LOC has been issued solely at the instance of the
Respondent Bank, without any underlying cognizable offence, and has
not been reviewed since the date of its issuance, continuing to subsist
mechanically till date. The Respondent Bank has contended that since
no collateral security is available in the NPA account of MFSPL, the
petitioner remains jointly and severally liable for the outstanding dues
as Director and personal guarantor of the Borrower Company.
(ii) W.P.(C) 16550/2023
42. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
LOC opened at the instance of Respondent No. 2/Union Bank of India,
seeking its quashing on the ground that the same has been issued
without any application of mind, thereby infringing the petitioner‟s
right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner first
came to know of the impugned LOC on 23.11.2023, when he was
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 36 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
stopped at the Indira Gandhi International Airport and denied
permission to board his flight to Dubai, where he was scheduled to
meet his investor.
43. The petitioner is the Promoter and Director of Respondent No.
3, to which Respondent No. 2 and SBI had extended credit facilities in
2011, which were declared NPA on 30.09.2016. Despite the petitioner
paying Rs. 11 crores and submitting multiple settlement proposals,
including a lump sum of Rs. 50 crores during the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process („CIRP‟) and Rs. 57.30 crores during
the liquidation proceedings along with an EMD of Rs. 10,00,000/- and
a bank guarantee of Rs. 6,55,90,000/-, none were accepted. The
National Company Law Tribunal („NCLT‟) vide order dated
01.12.2023 directed the concerned liquidator to convene meetings of
the shareholders and creditors in the Scheme of Compromise filed by
the petitioner under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.
44. It is pertinent to note that no criminal investigation is pending
against the petitioner, and the account has neither been declared as a
wilful defaulter nor fraud. No FIR or criminal complaint has been
registered at the instance of the Bank. The impugned LOC has been
issued solely at the instance of Respondent No. 2, contrary to the
Office Memoranda dated 27.10.2010 and 05.12.2017, without any
underlying cognizable offence.
(iii) W.P.(C) 7484/2023
45. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 37 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
the LOC issued against him. At the time of filing of the present
petition, the petitioner was given to understand that two LOCs existed
against him, one issued at the instance of Respondent/Central Bureau
of Investigation (“CBI”) and the other at the instance of Respondent
No. 3/Indian Bank. The LOC issued at the instance of the CBI has
since beenwithdrawn. What survives and is impugned in the present
petition is solely the LOC issued at the instance of Respondent No.
3/Indian Bank, which continues to subsist against the petitioner.
(iv) W.P.(C) 8252/2024
46. The petitioner is not named as an accused in theFIR filed by
CBI. This position has been fairly conceded by Mr. Ripudaman
Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the CBI, who submits that the petitioner
is not an accused in the FIR. While the CBI investigation is ongoing,
the petitioner has neither been arrested nor charge-sheeted. What
survives and is impugned in this petition is solely the LOC issued at
the instance of Respondent No. 3/Punjab National Bank.
47. Additionally, vide order dated 20.01.2025, permission was
granted to the petitioner to travel to Canada for the period from
21.01.2025 to 07.03.2025. The petitioner duly complied with the said
order and returned to India within the stipulated period without
flouting any condition imposed by this Court, thereby demonstrating
her bonafides.
(v) W.P.(C)549/2025
48. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 38 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
the LOC issued at the instance of BOB. The petitioner was a Director
of Mekaster Engineering Limited and resigned from the Directorship
on 22.02.2014. The petitioner is also a Guarantor for the loan facility
availed by the said company from BOB, which was declared NPA for
an outstanding amount of Rs. 11.23 crores.
49. Bank of Baroda has already initiated recovery proceedings by
way of OA 242/2015 before the DRT, Ahmedabad, and SARFAESI
proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner. The
impugned LOC appears to have been issued in the year 2022, and the
petitioner first came to know of the same on 14.06.2022 when he was
stopped at the airport. It is pertinent to note that there is no criminal
investigation pending against the petitioner, no FIR has been
registered, and no aspersion of non-cooperation has been raised
against him. The LOC has been issued solely at the instance of the
BOB in the absence of any underlying cognizable offence
50. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court vide
order dated 22.01.2025 had granted permission to the petitioner to
travel to the United Kingdom from 23.01.2025 to 20.02.2025 to attend
the graduation ceremony of his son. The petitioner duly complied with
the said order and returned to India within the stipulated period
without flouting any condition imposed by this Court, thereby
demonstrating his bonafides.
(vi) W.P.(C) 1304/2025
51. The present petition relates solely to the LOC issued at the
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 39 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
instance of BOB, opened on 01.10.2019. The petitioner was engaged
with M/s Kwality Limited, first as a Consultant and thereafter as an
Executive Director from 18.04.2011 to 28.05.2015, and subsequently
as a Non-Executive Director from 29.05.2015 to 10.07.2018. The said
company availed certain loan facilities, and upon default, the loan
account was declared NPA.
52. An FIR came to be registered by the CBI on 10.09.2020, in
which the petitioner has been named as an accused, with allegations of
diversion of funds, inflation of cash sales, and engagement in circular
transactions in her capacity as Director and personal guarantor of the
company. An ECIR was also registered by the Enforcement
Directorate. The petitioner is currently out on regular bail.
53. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court has on
four occasions permitted the petitioner to travel abroad. The petitioner
has on each occasion duly complied with the conditions imposed and
returned to India within the stipulated period, thereby demonstrating
her bonafides. The details of the travel permissions granted are as
under:
S.No. Order Destination Purpose
Date
1. 30.02.2025 Singapore Accompany Daughter for Higher
Studies
2. 13.10.2025 Singapore Settle in New Accommodation
3. 17.11.2025 Bangkok Not Specified
4. 19.12.2025 Baku, Attend Birthday of his family fried.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 40 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
Azerbaijan
54. The petitioner has at all times complied with the conditions
imposed by this Court and has returned as per the stipulated timelines
on each occasion, thereby demonstrating his bonafides and continued
respect for the directions of this Court.
(vii) W.P.(C) 7503/2024
55. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the LOC issued at the instance of Union Bank of India. The petitioner
is a citizen of India and has been a permanent resident of Hong Kong
since 1978, where he has incorporated his own company. The said
company availed a credit facility from the Hong Kong Branch of
Union Bank of India, in respect of which the petitioner was a personal
guarantor and had also mortgaged a property situated in Hong Kong.
56. Due to default in repayment, the Union Bank of India, Hong
Kong declared the bank account of the petitioner‟s company as NPA
on 30.09.2019. The petitioner first came to know of the impugned
LOC on 24.11.2021, when he was informed by the Immigration
Department upon being stopped while travelling back to Hong Kong
from India.
57. It is the case of the petitioner that no cause of action for the
issuance of the LOC arose within India, and if any cause of action
existed, it subsists solely in Hong Kong. It is pertinent to note that no
criminal case or investigation is pending against the petitioner in India,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 41 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
and the LOC has been issued solely at the instance of Union Bank of
India in the absence of any underlying cognizable offence.
(viii) W.P.(C) 4612/2025
58. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the LOC issued at the instance of BOB, which appears to have been
opened prior to 2022.
59. The petitioner is a guarantor to the loan facility availed by M/s
Mahesh Timber Private Limited from BOB, whose credit facilities
were declared NPA in 2016 with outstanding dues exceeding Rs. 50
crores. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is neither a Director nor
a shareholder of M/s Mahesh Timber Private Limited, and is not a
beneficiary of the loan facility availed by the said company. A
recovery application filed at the instance of BOB is also pending
adjudication before the DRT, Chandigarh.
60. The CBI has filed a chargesheet in the matter; however, the
petitioner has not been named therein. The petitioner is currently on
bail in FIR No. 3276/2014. It is further submitted that LOCs were also
opened by BOB against the petitioner‟s family members, namely, Smt.
Lakshmi Singhal (Mother), Shri Babu Ram (Father) and Shri Deepak
Singhal (Brother). This Court vide judgment dated 08.08.2024 in
W.P.(C) 15990/2023, 7239/2024 and 7207/2024 set aside those LOCs,
and the appeal preferred by BOB against the said judgment has been
dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2025 in LPA 1070/2024.
61. Mr. Arun Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for BOB, has
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 42 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable before this Court
as no part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial
jurisdiction. It is his case that the loan was availed at Chandigarh, the
DRT proceedings are pending at Chandigarh, and the LOC was
opened outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and hence the petitioner
ought to have approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
62. He also submits that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
W.P.(C) 19018/2022 and W.P.(C) 12712/2022 has quashed similar
LOCs issued at the instance of BOB, and the said orders were stayed
by the Supreme Court, pending a final adjudication on the challenge. It
is his case that the Court ought not to grant a similar relief.
63. Learned counsel has also relied upon certain Rajya Sabha
debates to reflect a considered Government policy on LOCs issued at
the instance of banks in matters of large financial defaults, and this
Court ought to be guided by the same.
64. It is found appropriate to deal with the specific submissions of
Mr Aggarwal, at this stage itself. They are found to be lacking in merit
owing to the following reasons:
65. First, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, particularly that the petition was entertained in 2025, that
the petitions filed by the petitioner‟s family members were entertained
and decided by this Court, and that pleadings stand completed, it
would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to another High
Court at this stage. While on this point alone the present petition ought
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 43 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
to be entertained. It may also be considered that the LOC in the instant
case has been opened at the behest of BOB, which is in Delhi, further
the Bureau of Immigration, which is the authority that ultimately
issues and circulates the LOC, is also in Delhi. Thus, it is not a case
where, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction
of this Court.
66. Second, the setting aside of an LOC is a fact-specific exercise
and depends upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case.
The stay of the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in other
matters would not operate as a bar to this Court examining the validity
of the impugned LOC on its own merits. It is settled law that a stay of
a judgment operates only inter parties and does not have the effect of
nullifying the legal principle laid down therein for all purposes. The
impugned LOC must therefore stand or fall on its own merits.
67. Third, legislative debates, including those in the Rajya Sabha,
are at best a tool of external aid in the interpretation of a statute and
cannot substitute a formal executive or legislative order. Unless there
is a formal order or notification issued by the Government, or a statute
passed by the legislature, which further has withstood judicial scrutiny,
parliamentary debates cannot be used to shield an order, which
otherwise deserves to be quashed.
(ix) W.P.(C) 4310/2026 AND 5086/2026
68. The present petitions have been moved by the petitioner seeking
suspension of the LOC(s) issued against her and permission to travel
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 44 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
abroad. W.P.(C) 4310/2026 arises out of the LOC issued at the
instance of Punjab National Bank, whereas W.P.(C) 5086/2026 arises
out of the LOC issued at the instance of BOB. Both petitions arise out
of the same set of facts pertaining to the alleged association of the
petitioner as a Director of Moser Baer India Ltd. (“MBIL”) and Moser
Baer Solar Ltd. (“MBSL”).
69. It is the case of the petitioner that the sole basis for issuance and
continuation of the LOC is his alleged association as a Director of
MBIL and MBSL, which had availed credit facilities from the
Respondent Banks. The allegations pertain to criminal conspiracy,
forgery, use of forged documents, and alleged irregularities in the loan
accounts of MBIL and MBSL. Consequent thereto, an FIR came to be
registered by the CBI, pursuant to which the impugned LOC was
issued against the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner was declared
a wilful defaulter under the Reserve Bank of India‟s Master Circular.
70. The petitioner was informed of the issuance of the impugned
LOC vide an undated letter received on 06.10.2020.
71. It is, however, pertinent to note that the declaration of the
petitioner as a wilful defaulter qua the account of MBSL by Punjab
National Bankhas since been set aside by this Court vide judgment
in Nita Puri v. Punjab National Bank,23and the same has been
affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment in Punjab
National Bank v. Nita Puri,24 thereby upholding the setting aside of
23
2024:DHC:1646 : W.P.(C) 10568/2023, order dt. 29.02.2024.
24
LPA No. 294/2024.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 45 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
the declaration of wilful default against the petitioner.
72. Further, the petitioner stands discharged in both the RC‟s by the
Trial Court. The Ld. CJM, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi
discharged the petitioner in the MBSL matter vide RC No.
223/2020/A/0002 in the case of CBI vs. M/s Moser Baer Solar Ltd. &
Ors. vide order dated 24.05.2025. Likewise, the Ld. Special Judge-
CBI, (PC Act)-10, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi
discharged the petitioner in the MBIL matter vide RC No.
RCBD1/2019/0006 in the case of CBI v. M/s Moser Baer India Ltd.
&Ors. vide order dated 17.01.2025.
73. While two revision petitions at the instance of the CBI against
the said discharge orders are pending before this Court, the CBI has
not independently opened any LOC against the petitioner. As of date,
no criminal investigation is pending against the petitioner at the
instance of any Investigating Agency, and the LOC earlier issued by
one such agency stands cancelled by the Court of competent
jurisdiction. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
Respondent No. 4/Central Bank of India that no LOC has been issued
at their instance.
74. Since the issuance of the impugned LOC, the petitioner has
been allowed to travel abroad on 12 occasions by this Court, by orders
passed in W.P.(C) 8608/2020 i.e., the earlier writ petition filed by
him,25and has duly returned on each and every occasion, without
25
Which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide the liberty granted by the Court in its order dated
14.01.2026 in W.P.(C) 8608/2020.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 46 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
flouting any condition imposed by this Court. The details whereof are
as under:
S.No. Order Date Destination Purpose
1. 24.12.2020 USA Medical Treatment of
Husband
2. 22.07.2021 USA Medical Treatment of
Husband
3. 10.12.2021 USA Personal Medical Treatment
4. 01.06.2022 USA To meet Grand-Daughter
5. 12.09.2022 USA To meet daughter & grand-
daughters; medical treatment
6. 28.03.2023 USA Not Specified
7. 28.03.2023 Interlaken, Vacation with daughter and
Switzerland grand-daughters
8. 17.08.2023 Not Specified Family get together
9. 15.03.2024 Not Specified Family get together
10. 05.07.2024 United Kingdom, Vacation with daughter and
Germany and grand-daughters
Australia
11. 03.09.2024 USA To spend time with daughter
12. 03.09.2024 USA To spend time with daughter
75. The petitioner has at all times complied with the conditions
imposed by this Court and has returned as per the stipulated timelines
on each occasion, thereby demonstrating her bonafides and continued
respect for the directions of this Court.
(x) W.P.(C) 4066/2026 AND W.P.(C) 5126/2026
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 47 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
76. The facts and situation in the instant case are almost similar to
W.P.(C) 3971/2026. The petitioner herein is also a Director of MBIL
and MBSL, and the background facts pertaining to the credit facilities,
declaration of fraud, CBI proceedings, and discharge orders remain the
same as set out hereinabove.
77. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 4066/2026 was informed of the
issuance of the impugned LOC vide mail dated 11.03.2022 by the
Bureau of Immigration. It is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent/CBI that no LOC has been issued at their
instance. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for Punjab National
Bank submits that while an LOC was earlier issued at their instance,
the same is no longer subsisting as on date. The petitioner confined the
present petition solely to the LOC issued at the instance of the Bank.
78. In W.P.(C) 5126/2026, LOC was issued at the instance of the
BOB, the remaining facts remain identical to W.P.(C) 4066/2026.
79. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has
been granted permission to travel abroad on 9 occasions and has duly
returned on each occasion without flouting any condition imposed by
this Court, thereby demonstrating his bonafides. The details whereof
are as under:
S.No. Order Date Destination Purpose
1. 20.04.2022 Franc and Iceland Business Meetings
2. 24.08.2022 USA and Spain Business Meetings and Meet
Daughter
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 48 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
3. 14.12.2022 Netherlands and Not Specified
&20.12.2022 France
4. 05.04.2023 USA Business Meetings and Meet
Daughter
5. 25.08.2023 Spain and Italy Business Meetings
6. 03.04.2024 South Korea, Business Meetings
Japan and UAE
7. 16.05.2024 France, Business Meetings
Switzerland and
England
8. 29.10.2024 Japan, Oman and Business Meetings
Thailand
9. 22.09.2025 Spain Business Meetings
(xi) W.P.(C) 1196/2026
80. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the LOCs issued at the instance of Indian Bank and BOB. The
petitioner is the former Chairman and Managing Director of M/s
Neosis Industries Limited, which had availed banking facilities from a
consortium of lenders led by Punjab National Bank, including
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
81. The Banks have submitted that the account of the company has
been declared fraud and that a huge amount remains to be recovered
from the petitioner. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that
these aspects, even assuming to be correct, cannot be the sole basis for
opening or continuing the LOCs against the petitioner. It is further
noted that the Respondent Banks have not placed on record any
document to substantiate the declaration of the account as fraud.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 49 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
82. The petitioner was granted relief by the Ld. Special Judge, PC
Act vide order dated 06.02.2026 permitting him to travel to Bangkok
from 17.02.2026 to 28.02.2026, and the petitioner duly complied with
the said order and returned within the stipulated period, thereby
demonstrating his bonafides.
83. Having set out the facts of each of the aforementioned petitions,
this Court finds it apposite to note that all abovementioned petitions,
though arising from distinct factual matrices, share a common and
identical legal thread: in each case, the Look Out Circular has been
issued solely at the instance of a public sector bank, in the absence of
any subsisting independent criminal proceeding forming the
foundation for such issuance, or in cases where the petitioner is either
not named as an accused, has been discharged by the Trial Court, or is
merely a guarantor or former director with no direct and personal
complicity established in the alleged fraud or misappropriation. It is
for this reason that all petitions are being considered and disposed of
together, as they raise identical questions of law and call for the
application of the same settled legal principles.
84. The fundamental question before this Court in these petitions
resolves itself into a single compound inquiry–whether the concerned
LOCs qualify and meet the principles set out by this Court in para. 34-
38 of this judgement, including, inter alia, whether at the time of
issuance of the LOC, a live and validly registered cognizable offence
under the IPC or any other penal statute, and was the LOC issued by a
competent authority acting upon credible, specific, and independently
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 50 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
verified material? Where the LOC is found to fall ill with the
principles enunciated above, the LOC must fall, and this Court is
constitutionally obligated to quash it. When the facts of each of the
aforenoted petitions before this Court are tested against this standard,
it is evident that none of them satisfy the requirement of law.
85. In all cases, the LOCs have been continued mechanically
without any periodic review, and several petitioners, particularly those
in W.P.(C) 4310/2026, W.P.(C) 5086/2026, W.P.(C) 4066/2026 and
W.P.(C) 5126/2026, have travelled abroad on multiple occasions and
returned each time without default, demonstrating their bonafides
beyond doubt.
86. The LOCs are accordingly quashed and set aside in, subject to
the following conditions:-
a. Each petitioner shall be entitled to travel abroad without
any prior permission from this Court. The petitioner shall,
however, intimate the concerned Bank, with their full
itinerary either personally or through counsel, at least 48
hours priorto his/her departure;
b. If, for any reason, it is not possible to furnish the said
intimation within 48 hours, the same shall be furnished
immediately when the travel plan is finalised; andc. If on account of a change in law, including a declaration
by a Court, affirming the competence/jurisdiction of
financial institutions to seek the issuance LOCs, the
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 51 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
institutions shall be at liberty to seek the issuance of
LOCs in accordance with law.
87. The concernedBanksaredirectedtoinform the Bureau of
Immigration regarding, inter alia, the quashing of the LOCs against
the respective petitioners, and to take all necessary steps to ensure that
the petitionersare not impeded from travelling abroad. The petitioner
shall also be at liberty to send such communication to the Immigration
Department independently.
88. While the aforesaid common conditions shall apply to all
abovementioned petitions, it is further directed that in certain petitions,
the following additional conditions shall apply over and above the
common conditions set out hereinabove:
W.P.(C) 1304/2025
89. Since the petitioner is already complying with the terms and
conditions of the bail order and shall always be travelling with the
permission of the concerned Court, there is no impediment in setting
aside the LOC issued at the instance of the Bank. The same stands set
aside.
90. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not travel abroad unless
she obtains prior permission from the competent Court(s) where the
chargesheet(s) have been filed and the matters are pending, unless the
LOCs issued at the instance of the CBI and the Enforcement
Directorate are set aside or the concerned Court otherwise permits.
W.P.(C) 7503/2024
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 52 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
91. The decree holder shall always be at liberty to seek appropriate
directions from the Executing Court requiring deposit of the
petitioner‟s passport or its seizure, as may be deemed fit.
92. The petitioner shall intimate the concerned Bank, either
personally or through counsel, at least 7 days prior to his departure to
Hong Kong, in substitution of the 48-hour period stipulated in the
common conditions. In the event the petitioner returns to India, he
shall likewise intimate the concerned Bank in advance of his travel
back to Hong Kong.
II. LOCs ISSUED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCIES AND
MINISTERIES
(xii) W.P.(C) 9610/2023, W.P.(C) 3904/2025, W.P.(C) 11461/2025
AND W.P.(C) 11972/2025
93. The present petitions have been filed by five petitioners, all
members of the same family, seeking quashing of the LOCs issued
against them at the instance of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office
(“SFIO”). The petitioners were appointed to different positions in
Assotech Limited, a company engaged in real estate development
having executed multiple projects across Delhi and the National
Capital Region.
94. Company Petition No. 357/2015 directed the SFIO to
investigate into the affairs of Assotech Limited during the period of
ex-management. The investigation so directed has since been
completed and a complaint has been filed before the Court of
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 53 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
competent jurisdiction invoking Sections 447, 313 and 448 of the
Companies Act, 2013 and Sections 211 read with 628 and 454 of the
Companies Act, 1956, wherein the role and allegations attributed
against each of the petitioners have been elaborately dealt with.
Cognizance on the said complaint has, however, not yet been taken,
and the matter is listed for consideration on 21.05.2026.
95. It is pertinent to note that each of the petitioners has rendered
fullest cooperation to the SFIO in completion of the investigation, and
no aspersion of non-cooperation has been raised against any of them.
The petitioners have further undertaken before this Court that they
shall fully cooperate with the complaint proceedings and appear before
the concerned Court as and when cognizance is taken.
96. During the pendency of the present petitions, all five petitioners
were permitted to travel abroad on multiple occasions by interim
orders of this Court and have reported back on each occasion,
complying strictly with the conditions imposed, without any violation
whatsoever.
(xiii) W.P.(C) 10895/2023
97. The present petition has been filed by the Chairman &
Managing Director of Hotel Queen Road Private Limited, seeking
quashment of the LOC dated 13.07.2022, issued at the instance of the
Income Tax Department following a search action conducted on
07.07.2022, alleging high value cash transactions and undisclosed
foreign assets under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 54 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
98. During the relevant period of allegations, i.e., 2015-2016 to
2018-2019, the petitioner was a Non-Resident Indian and was
accordingly not required to disclose his foreign assets in India. Upon
returning to India, the petitioner duly disclosed all foreign bank
accounts and income from sale of foreign assets in Dubai in his ITRs
for Assessment Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 respectively.
99. As on date, there is no FIR registered against the petitioner and
his complicity is not under investigation in any cognizable offence.
The Income Tax Department has passed an assessment order dated
30.03.2026 making certain additions on account of undisclosed foreign
assets, which is under challenge in W.P.(C) 3935/2026, wherein this
Court has directed that the said order shall not be given effect to until
further orders.
100. This Court vide order dated 30.05.2025 had further allowed the
interim suspension of the LOC subject to conditions. It is submitted
that the pendency of recovery proceedings alone cannot sustain the
LOC.
(xiv)W.P.(C) 1942/2023 AND W.P.(C) 1962/2023
101. The present connected petitions, being W.P.(C) 1942/2023 and
W.P.(C) 1962/2023, have been filed challenging the LOC issued
against the petitioner at the instance of the State Bank of India and the
CBI respectively. Both petitions arise out of the same facts and
circumstances.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 55 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
102. The petitioner was a Director in Respondent No. 3 and
Respondent No. 4 Companies, from which he claims to have resigned
in December 2015 and May 2014 respectively. The petitioner had
stood as a guarantor in respect of the loan facility availed by the said
Companies from the Bank. Proceedings for recovery of the said loan
are presently pending before the DRT.
103. The LOC issued at the instance of SBI arises out of the
aforesaid loan facility and the recovery proceedings pending before the
DRT.
104. The LOC issued at the instance of CBI is based on FIR bearing
No. RC0032020A0019, registered under Sections 420, 467, and 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner seems to have fully
cooperated with the investigation. The CBI has since completed its
investigation and filed a charge-sheet before the Court of competent
jurisdiction.
105. Since the appropriate forum for adjudication of the dispute
between the petitioner and the Bank is the DRT, the continuance of the
LOC issued at the instance of SBI is not warranted. Insofar as the LOC
issued at the instance of CBI is concerned, the petitioner has not been
called upon by the investigating agency for a period of more than two
years and the LOC, having served its purpose, has lost its utility.
(xv)W.P.(C) 950/2025AND W.P.(C) 16610/2024
106. The present petitions have been filed by Sh. Anil Bhalla
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 56 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
(W.P.(C) 16610/2024), and his son Sh. Gautam Bhalla (W.P.(C)
950/2025), both erstwhile Directors of Vatika Limited, challenging the
LOCs issued against them at the instance of the Enforcement
Directorate („ED‟) in connection with ECIR/GNZO/16/2021
registered under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
(„PMLA‟) on the basis of FIRs of Economic Offences of Wing
(„EOW‟). The LOCs earlier issued against both petitioners by the
EOW in April 2022 were revoked in August 2022. Both petitioners
seem tohave fully cooperated with the ED investigation at all stages.
They were neither arrested, and nor are there present any allegation of
non-cooperation, which have been raised against either of them. The
ED also seems to have secured its interests by attaching properties
worth Rs. 68,59,90,725/- vide PAO No. 3/2025 and Rs.
1,08,33,90,000/- vide PAO No. 30/2025. The Special Court, however,
as of now has not taken cognizance of the offence.
107. During the pendency of the present petitions, the petitioner in
W.P.(C) 16610/2024 was permitted to travel to the United Kingdom
for medical treatment vide interim orders dated 05.12.2024 and
06.12.2024. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 950/2025 was permitted to
travel to London on two occasions, vide order dated 28.07.2025 for his
daughter‟s admission process and vide order dated 14.01.2026 for
visiting his daughter, and has duly complied with the conditions on
each occasion, thereby demonstrating his bonafides.
(xvi) W.P.(C) 8859/2025
108. The present petition has been filed by five petitioners, all family
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 57 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
members, challenging the LOC issued against them at the instance of
the Income Tax Department. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are husband and
wife, petitioner nos. 3 and 5 are their children, and petitioner no. 4 is
the daughter-in-law, who is a foreign national. Except petitioner no. 4,
all other petitioners are tax residents in India.
109. On receipt of information regarding alleged non-disclosure of
foreign properties, a search and seizure action was conducted on
24.10.2024 and concluded on 27.10.2024 at various premises of the
petitioners in Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and at Narmada River
View Resort, Madhya Pradesh. Certain incriminating material was
found which prima facie revealed an undisclosed foreign entities and
assets, including an entity by the name of Safai International operating
in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, purportedly run by petitioner no. 1.
110. The petitioners were subsequently summoned on 04.12.2024 for
post-search proceedings and duly submitted their clarifications
between 17.01.2025 and 21.01.2025. There is no FIR registered
against any of the petitioners nor is any cognizable offence under
investigation.
111. On 14.04.2025, petitioner no. 1 submitted a written request to
the Respondent seeking withdrawal of the LOC for himself and his
family members, assuring continued cooperation. For the past six
months, no further summons or notices have been issued to the
petitioners.
(xvii) W.P.(C) 4065/2025
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 58 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
112. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of the LOC issued at the instance of the Income Tax
Department.
113. The petitioner is a director of several tax-paying companies and
is a resident of the USA. Search and seizure operations were
conducted by the Income Tax Department on 27-28.11.2024 at the
residence of the petitioner, offices of companies where the petitioner is
a director, and the residences of his father, brother and in-laws, while
the petitioner was in the USA attending to medical exigencies. The
petitioner, thereafter, returned to India, underwent surgery for a
malignant tumour on17-18.02.2025, and upon recovery, duly joined
the investigation in person on 25.02.2025 and subsequently submitted
replies to queries raised during the in-person hearing vide emails dated
12.03.2025, 17.03.2025 and 20.03.2025.
114. It is pertinent to note that no FIR has been registered against the
petitioner and no cognizable offence has been made out. The
investigation qua the income of the petitioner stands concluded and
assessment proceedings are presently pending. The petitioner learnt of
the existence of the LOC only on 19.03.2025 when informed by the
Respondent, compelling him to file the present petition.
(xviii)W.P.(C) 1875/2025
115. The present petition has been filed challenging the LOC issued
at the instance of the ED on 26.09.2024 in connection with ECIR. No.
GNZO/16/2021, which was registered by the ED on the basis of 4
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 59 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
FIRs.
116. It is pertinent to note that the ED has filed a complaint against
persons whose complicity has been prima facie established; however,
the petitioner has not been proposed as an accused in the ECIR. The
ED seeks continuance of the LOC on the ground that proceeds of
crime are yet to be identified and that the petitioner is a flight risk.
117. The petitioner had travelled abroad on two occasions after the
commencement of the investigation and prior to the issuance of the
LOC on 26.09.2024, without seeking any prior permission, and duly
returned to India on both occasions. This conduct, far from
establishing flight risk, demonstrates the petitioner‟s bonafides and his
intention to remain within the reach of the investigating agency.
(xix) W.P.(C)19065/2025
118. The present petition has been filed challenging the LOC issued
at the instance of SFIO. The petitioner was a Non-Executive Director
of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited (“HEVPL”) from
31.07.2010 to 21.05.2024, with a limited role and no operational
responsibility over HEVPL. HEVPL is alleged to have wrongfully
claimed subsidies under the FAME-II Scheme and violated the Phased
Manufacturing Programme (“PMP”) Guidelines.
119. Vide order dated 25.09.2024, SFIO was directed to investigate
the affairs of HEVPL. The petitioner fully cooperated with the
investigation, appeared before SFIO on 15.11.2024 and 09.01.2025,
and furnished all documents and details as sought. There was no
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 60 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
coercive process against the petitioner at any stage.
120. On 28.11.2025, SFIO stated before this Court in W.P.(Crl.)
3594/2024 that the investigation stands concluded and the report has
been submitted to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 14.10.2025 for
prosecution. There is no FIR by any other investigating agency, and no
prosecution complaint has been filed against the petitioner till date.
(xx) W.P.(C) 15146/2025 AND W.P.(C) 14518/2024
121. The present connected Writ Petitions, have been filed
challenging the LOCs issued at the instance of the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs („MCA‟). Both the petitioners were Directors of
M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. On 25.03.2021, a Company
Petition bearing (IB) No. 197/PB/2021 was filed before the NCLT,
New Delhi on behalf of the company under Section 10 of IBC, 2016,
seeking initiation of the CIRP.
122. Vide order dated 06.06.2022, the NCLT rejected the said
Company Petition and directed the Central Government to conduct
necessary investigation into the affairs of the Company. Pursuant
thereto, vide order dated 15.06.2022, the Central Government ordered
an investigation by the Regional Director, MCA into the affairs of M/s
Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd.
123. Both the petitioners appeared before the concerned officer of the
MCA on 08.08.2023 and 29.02.2024 and submitted Representations
dated 18.12.2023 and 21.03.2025 to the MCA requesting
suspension/revocation of the LOCs issued against them, as they have
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 61 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
frequent personal and professional obligations requiring travel abroad.
124. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner in
W.P.(C) 14518/2024was permitted to travel abroad on 6 occasions and
has completed all previous journeys without any default or violation of
any terms and conditions imposed by this Court. Travel details are as
follows:
S. No. Order Date C.M. No. Duration Allowed
1. 24.12.2024 73194 of 2024 27.12.2024 to
01.02.2025
2. 10.02.2025 7246 of 2025 12.02.2025 to
26.03.2025
3. 17.04.2025 20919 of 2025 22.04.2025 to
11.08.2025
4. 30.07.2025 42084 of 2025 30.07.2025 to
31.08.2025
5. 04.09.2025 42084 of 2025 11.09.2025 to
08.10.2025
6. 16.10.2025 42084 of 2025 01.11.2025 to
31.01.2026
(xxi) W.P.(C) 2799/2026
125. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of the LOC issued at the instance of the Income Tax
Department. It is noted that the LOC issued at the instance of the Bank
against the same petitioner has already been set aside by this Court in
W.P.(C) 5126/2026.
126. It is the case of the petitioner that black money proceedings
have been initiated against him involving allegations of undisclosed
foreign assets and siphoning of funds. However, no assessment or
demand has been raised against the petitioner as the proceedings stand
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 62 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 3816/2023. As
of date, no cognizable offence has been made out against the petitioner
and the investigation remains pending.
127. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has
been permitted to travel abroad on 9 occasions and has duly returned
on each occasion without flouting any condition imposed by this
Court, thereby demonstrating his bonafides. The details of the travel
permissions granted are as under:
128. The continuation of the impugned LOCs in the aforenoted cases
is not sustainable, they are accordingly set aside, subject to the
following conditions:
a. The petitioners shall be entitled to travel abroad without
any prior permission of this Court.The petitioners shall,
however, intimate and provide the full itinerary to the
concerned department/agency, eitherpersonally or
through counsel, at least 48 hours prior to their departure;
andb. If, on account of a change in law, or any other
supervening event, including a declaration by a Court, the
institutions shall be at liberty to seek the issuance of
LOCs in accordance with law.
129. The concerned Investigating agencies/ Ministries are directed to
inform the Bureau of Immigration regarding, inter alia, the quashing
of the LOCs against the respective petitioners, and to take all
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 63 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
necessary steps to ensure that the petitionersare not impeded from
travelling abroad. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to send such
communication to the Immigration Department independently.
130. With the aforesaid directions, the aforesaid petitions stand
disposed of accordingly.
131. While the aforesaid common conditions shall apply to all
abovementioned petitions, it is further directed that in certain petitions,
the following additional conditions shall apply over and above the
common conditions set out hereinabove.
W.P.(C) 10895/2023 AND W.P.(C) 8859/2025
132. The petitioners shall disclose on affidavit, the list of all
moveable and immoveable assets in India (including those jointly
owned by the petitioner along with his family members).
133. The petitioners shall furnish a full itinerary to the Investigating
Agency seven days before undertaking any journey abroad,and if not
possible, at least 48 hours before undertaking the same;
134. The petitioners shall not create any third-party rights whatsoever
without prior intimation to the Investigation Agency.
135. The petitioners shall disclose all his/her assets held by him/her
or the company entities controlled by him/her directly or indirectly in
any foreign country whether it is movable or immovable.
136. The petitioners shall disclose all his foreign bank accounts
(whether singly or jointly) and shall also furnish the bank statements in
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 64 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
respect thereof, for the period since the date of the opening of the said
bank account/s till date.
W.P.(C) 9610/2023, W.P.(C) 3904/2025, W.P.(C) 11461/2025 AND
W.P.(C) 11972/2025
137. One of the petitioners shall always remain in India at all times,
and all the petitioners shall not be permitted to travel abroad together
simultaneously.
W.P.(C) 19065/2025
138. The petitioner shall furnish bank statements in respect of all
foreign bank account(s) held by him, from the date of opening of such
account(s) till date, before the concerned officials of the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, and shall not operate any such foreign bank
account(s) while travelling abroad.
139. The petitioner shall file a detailed affidavit disclosing his
complete travel itinerary, including stay locations, telephone numbers,
and residential/hotel addresses abroad, along with an undertaking to
strictly adhere to the said itinerary.
140. The petitioner shall provide all contact numbers to be used
during his stay abroad, at least one of which shall remain operational
at all times, save for the period of travel on board an aircraft.
141. Upon return to India, the petitioner shall file a self-attested copy
of his passport along with copies of the relevant visas
III. APPROPRIATINESS OF RELEGATING THE
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 65 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
PETITIONER TO THE FORUM THAT ISSUED THE LOC
142. Having dealt with the category of cases where the LOCs deserve
to be quashed outright, it is imperative to turn to a distinct and
doctrinally coherent category of cases before us, where the facts do not
warrant an immediate quashing of the LOC but where the petitioners‟
grievances are more appropriately addressable before the forum that
originally ordered the issuance of the LOC or the Court before which
the criminal proceedings are pending.
143. These are the category of cases where the writ court has
disposed of the writ petition, without interfering with the LOC, but has
simultaneously directed the petitioner to approach the authority or
forum that originally ordered the issuance of the LOC, for appropriate
relief. This mode of disposal deserves separate and careful analytical
treatment, as it reflects a nuanced judicial recognition of the
constitutional balance between the writ court‟s plenary jurisdiction and
the institutional primacy of the originating forum in the first instance.
Sumer Singh Salkan is the bedrock authority for this category, which
laid down comprehensive guidelines for the LOC regime. It
specifically held as under:
“11A… Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in
cognizable offences underIPC or other penal laws, where the accused
was deliberately evading arrest or notappearing in the trial court
despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there waslikelihood of
the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to
the officer as notifiedby the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs,
giving details & reasons for seeking LOC.The competent officer alone
shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an orderSignature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 66 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
inthisrespect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by
appearing I.O orshould surrender the court concerned or should
satisfy the court that LOC was wronglyissued against him. He may
also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC &explain that
LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the
authoritythat issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court
where case is pending or havingjurisdiction over concerned police
station on an application by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the
investigating agency orCourt of law. The subordinate courts’
jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC iscommensurate with the
jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.”
144. The disposal of a writ petition with a direction to approach the
forum issuing LOC or undertaking an investigation, is not a rejection
of the petitioner‟s grievance on merits but a recognition of the
institutional design of the LOC regime, which contemplates a layered
grievance-redressal mechanism. The four petitions dealt with
hereinbelow fall squarely within this category.
(xxii). W.P.(C) 17646/2022 AND 17647/2022
145. These two connected petitions have been filed by Shri Neeraj
Singal (W.P.(C) 17647/2022), the erstwhile promoter, Vice Chairman
and, and Managing Director of M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. (“BSL”), and
Smt. Ritu Singal (W.P.(C) 17646/2022), his wife, both seeking
directions to the Bureau of Immigration, CBI, ED and SFIO to
disclose and place on record the LOC(s), if any, issued against them,
and in the event any LOC is found to be subsisting, to quash the same.
146. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 17647/2022 was the erstwhile
promoter, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of BSL. Pursuant to
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 67 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the
CIRP of BSL commenced on 26.07.2017 and the company was
subsequently acquired by Tata Steel vide order dated 15.05.2018
passed by the NCLT, whereafter the petitioner ceased to be associated
with BSL. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 17646/2022 is the wife of the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 17647/2022 and has been a housewife
throughout, with no involvement in the day-to-day affairs of BSL.
147. Three criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner in
W.P.(C) 17647/2022, them being:
a. CBI FIR bearing RC No. AC-1/2014/A0004, registered
on 01.08.2014, in which chargesheet was filed on
30.09.2015 and the matter is currently at the stage of
prosecution evidence before the Ld. Special Judge (CBI),
Rouse Avenue Courts;
b. SFIO Complaint CC No. 770/2019, wherein the petitioner
has been arrayed as Accused No. 159, currently pending
at the stage of Section 207/208 CrPC before the Ld.
Special Court (Companies Act), Dwarka; and
c. ED ECIR/DLZO-II/06/2019, in which properties worth
Rs. 61.38 crores have been provisionally attached vide
PAO No. 13/2021 dated 08.11.2021, which has been
stayed by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2022 in
W.P.(Crl.) 11250/2022;
148. As regards the petitioner in W.P.(C) 17646/2022, she has been
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 68 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
arrayed as Accused No. 210 in the SFIO Complaint CC No. 770/2019
and is also named in the ED ECIR/DLZO-II/06/2019, solely on
account of being the wife of the principal accused.
149. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 17647/2022 has been granted bail in
the CBI matter vide order dated 27.09.2014, with bail conditions
subsequently modified vide order dated 27.01.2016 by the Ld. CBI
Court, requiring only 3 days prior intimation to the court before
travellingabroad along with furnishing of a complete itinerary and an
FDR of Rs. 5 lakhs. The same travel conditions were adopted for the
SFIO bail granted by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2018 in
W.P.(Crl.) 2453/2018, confirmed by the Supreme Court vide order
dated 04.09.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1114-1115/2018. During the
pendency of the CBI matter, the petitioner has travelled abroad on 15-
20 occasions with the permission of the Ld. Special CBI Court and has
returned on each occasion without fail, in strict compliance with the
conditions imposed.
150. Both petitioners were constrained to address a Representation
dated 29.09.2022 to the Bureau of Immigration, CBI, ED and SFIO
seeking disclosure of the LOC(s), if any, issued against them and
seeking their withdrawal. However, no response has been received
from any of the concerned authorities to the said representation till
date.
(xxiii) W.P.(C) 1755/2023
151. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 69 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
suspension of the LOC(s) issued against him and permission to travel
abroad. The petitioner is the founder and erstwhile Promoter of M/s
Su-Kam Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. (“Sukam”), which had availed
credit facilities from a consortium of lenders.
152. The accounts of Sukam were declared as fraud by the
Respondent Banks, pursuant to which a complaint was lodged with the
CBI, and an FIR bearing No. RC2202021E0001 dated 22.01.2021
came to be registered by the CBI against the petitioner.Upon
conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed by the CBI
and the same is presently pending consideration before the Court of
competent jurisdiction.
(xxiv) W.P.(C) 18812/2025
153. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the LOC issued against him at the instance of CBI. The petitioner is a
tours and travels consultant running a proprietorship concern under the
name “Dharmvir Consultancy” registered as a Micro Business Entity
under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006 (“MSMED Act, 2006“).
154. The CBI is conducting investigation in Case No.
RC2312022S0003 in which the petitioner was summoned vide notice
dated 13.09.2025 and duly appeared on 15.09.2025, appearing to fully
cooperate with the investigation. Upon conclusion of investigation, a
chargesheet has been filed by the CBI and the same is presently
pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 70 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
155. The common thread running through all four petitions in this
category is that, in each of the four petitions before the Court in this
category, a chargesheet has been filed by the CBI or other
investigating agency before a Court of competent jurisdiction, and the
matters are pending adjudication before the respective trial courts.
156. In such circumstances, the settled legal position as laid down
in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) makes it clear that the appropriate
remedy for the petitioners is not to approach the writ court for
quashing of the LOC, but to approach the trial court before which the
chargesheet is pending, which has full jurisdiction to modify or cancel
the LOC upon an appropriate application. The Trial Court is already
seized of the matter and is best equipped to assess the necessity and
proportionality of the LOC with the benefit of the complete
investigative record.
157. It is further noted that in W.P.(C) 17647/2022, the petitioner has
already been granted modified bail conditions by the Ld. CBI Court
permitting him to travel abroad upon 3 days prior intimation, and has
in fact travelled abroad on 15-20 occasions during the pendency of the
proceedings before the trial court. In such circumstances, it is the trial
court that is the appropriate forum to address any grievance regarding
the LOC, and this Court does not find it necessary to exercise its writ
jurisdiction at this stage.
158. Similarly, in W.P.(C) 1755/2023 and W.P.(C) 18812/2025,
since chargesheets have been filed and the matters are pending before
the Courts of competent jurisdiction, the petitioners are best advised to
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 71 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
approach those Courts for appropriate relief.
159. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are disposed of
with the following directions:
a. The writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the
respective petitioners to approach the Court of competent
jurisdiction before which the chargesheet/complaint is
pending, seeking modification or cancellation of the
LOC, as the case may be;
b. The concerned Courts shall consider such applications
expeditiously and in accordance with law; andc. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the LOC or the underlying
criminal proceedings, and the disposal of these petitions
shall not prejudice the rights of any party before the trial
court.
D. CONCLUSION
160. In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons recorded
hereinabove, all the writ petitions listed herein, being W.P.(C)
7348/2023, W.P.(C) 16550/2023, W.P.(C) 7484/2023, W.P.(C)
8252/2024, W.P.(C) 549/2025, W.P.(C) 1304/2025, W.P.(C)
4612/2025, W.P.(C) 4310/2026, W.P.(C) 5086/2026, W.P.(C)
4066/2026, W.P.(C) 5126/2026, W.P.(C) 1196/2026, W.P.(C)
9610/2023, W.P.(C) 3904/2025, W.P.(C) 11461/2025, W.P.(C)
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 72 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
11972/2025, W.P.(C) 10895/2023, W.P.(C) 1942/2023, W.P.(C)
1962/2023, W.P.(C) 950/2025, W.P.(C) 16610/2024, W.P.(C)
8859/2025, W.P.(C) 4065/2025, W.P.(C) 1875/2025, W.P.(C)
19065/2025, W.P.(C) 15146/2025, W.P.(C) 14518/2024, W.P.(C)
2799/2026 and W.P.(C) 4065/2025, stand disposed of along with all
pending applications in the above terms. The Impugned Look Out
Circulars issued against the respective petitioners in each of the
aforementioned writ petitions are, hereby, set aside and quashed.
161. So far as W.P.(C) 17646/2022, W.P.(C) 17647/2022, W.P.(C)
1755/2023 and W.P.(C) 18812/2025 are concerned, the petitioners in
the said writ petitions are relegated to the appropriate forum to seek
relief in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of the said
petitioners, and it shall be open to them to avail such remedies as may
be available to them in law. The said writ petitions, along with all
pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 17, 2026
aks/p/sh/da/nk
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
11:49:35 Page 73 of 73 KUMAR KAURAV
