Bank Of Baroda vs Vineet Gupta & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 28.07.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010312032026
+ LPA 534/2026, CM APPL. 45283/2026 & CM APPL. 45286/2026
BANK OF BARODA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sougat Sinha, Ms. R. Gayathri
Manasa, Mr. Navneet Kumar, Mr.
Vishal Majumdar and Ms. Maitrayee
Shrivastva, Advocates.
versus
VINEET GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms.
Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Arpan
Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik and Mr.
Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocates for R3/UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL )
CM APPL. 45284/2026(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 45285/2026(Delay)
3. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 84 days in filing the present Appeal.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
averments made in the Application seeking condonation of delay in filing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 534/2026 Page 1 of 6

the present Appeal, the same is allowed. The delay of 84 days in filing the
Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.
LPA 534/2026
6. The present intra court Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against
the judgment dated 10.02.2026 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 7850/2025 (“ Writ
Petition ”),
7. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal before this
Court are as under:
a. The Appellant Bank claims that M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited -
Borrower Company had availed various credit facilities from a
consortium of lenders, which includes the Appellant Bank, and
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 acted as Promoters/Directors of the
Borrower Company.
b. The loan account of the Borrower Company was classified as a Non-
Performing Asset on 30.03.2013 and was subsequently declared
‘fraud’ on 30.05.2016. On 23.08.2018, M/s Weather Makers Private
Limited filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process (“ CIRP ”) against the Borrower Company, before the
National Company Law Tribunal (“ NCLT ”), Chandigarh, and the
same was admitted to CIRP vide order dated 30.08.2018.
c. On 29.12.2021, pursuant to a complaint filed on behalf of the
Consortium of lenders, the CBI registered an FIR bearing No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 534/2026 Page 2 of 6

RCBD1/2021/E/0010 against the Borrower Company and
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Further, in relation to the said FIR, the
Enforcement Directorate has also registered an ECIR bearing No.
CDZO-I/01/2022 dated 06.01.2022.
d. Due to apprehension that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may flee to
foreign jurisdiction to avoid repayment of the outstanding dues of the
Borrower Company, the Appellant Bank requested Respondent No. 3 to
issue a Look Out Circular (“ LOC ”) against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
e. Aggrieved by the LOC opened against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the
Writ Petition was instituted by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking
setting aside of the LOC, which was allowed by way of the Impugned
Judgment. Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal has been filed by
the Appellant.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single
Judge in the Impugned Judgment has proceeded on the assumption that the
right to travel is an absolute right, however, the said right can be regulated
by way of the procedure established by law. It was further submitted by the
learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Impugned Judgment was passed
by the learned Single Judge without due consideration of the material placed
on record.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single
Judge failed to consider that the judgment passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India , 2024 SCC
OnLine Bom 1195, is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLP (C) Nos. 17194-17230/2024 and has not attained finality.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 534/2026 Page 3 of 6

10. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the material
placed on record. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge
quashed the LOCs and disposed of the Writ Petition with the following
directions:
“ 29. On the anvil of the aforesaid discussion, there does not seem to be
any justification to continue the existence of the LOC(s) in the instant
case. Accordingly, LOC(s) is quashed with the following directions:
i. The petitioners to submit an undertaking before the Special
Judge, PMLA Court, Chandigarh and the Special Judge, CBI
Court, Chandigarh, affirming that they shall continue to
cooperate with the investigation, if any, and they shall appear
before the concerned trial Court as and when required,
rendering full cooperation in the early disposal of trial.
ii. Henceforth, they shall undertake abroad journey with the
prior permission is obtained from the competent Courts,
where the trial is pending. ”
11. This Bench in Bank of Baroda v. Surender Kumar Bansal, 2026
SCC OnLine Del 4574, held that the power to issue an LOC is an
exceptional coercive measure that directly impinges upon an individual’s
fundamental right to travel. Accordingly, it was further held that such power
must be exercised with due care and caution, and only in exceptional
circumstances. Therefore, in the absence of compelling reasons, no person
may be deprived of the right to travel abroad.
12. Further, this Bench in Bank of Baroda (supra) noted that the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Viraj Chetan Shah (supra) has quashed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 534/2026 Page 4 of 6

certain clauses of different Office Memorandums, which regulate issuance
of LOC, to the extent that they permitted Chairman, Managing Directors and
Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks to make request for
issuance of LOC. Moreover, there is no stay of the operation of the
judgement in Viraj Chetan Shah (supra) by the Supreme Court. Accordingly,
LOCs issued at the instance of public sector banks are liable to be quashed.
13. In view of the decisions in Bank of Baroda (supra) and Viraj Chetan
Shah (supra), we are of the view that the learned Single Judge correctly
observed in the Impugned Judgment that an LOC issued at the instance of
Chairman, Managing Director or Chief Executive Officer of the public
sector banks would not stand the scrutiny of law and judicial review.
Therefore, the LOC opened at the request of the Appellant against
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed.
14. Further, it is noted that in case Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 intend to
travel abroad, it is made clear in the Impugned Judgment that Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 shall obtain prior permission from the competent Courts, where
the trial is pending. Moreover, the Impugned Judgment also requires
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to submit an undertaking before the Special Judge,
PMLA Court, Chandigarh and the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh,
affirming that they shall continue to cooperate with the investigation, if any,
and they shall appear before the concerned trial Court as and when required,
rendering full cooperation in the early disposal of trial. Therefore, there are
adequate safeguards in place in the Impugned Judgment, safeguarding the
interests of the Appellant in case Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 intend to travel
abroad.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 534/2026 Page 5 of 6

15. In view thereof, we find no infirmity with the Impugned Judgment.
Resultantly, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending Application(s),
if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
JULY 28, 2026
St
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 534/2026 Page 6 of 6