Bank Of Baroda vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.07.2026
+ LPA 546/2026 & CM APPLs. 46124-29/2026
BANK OF BARODA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Niharika Talwan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Ms.
Mishika Pandita, Advocates for R-
4/CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL )
1. The present intra court Appeal has been filed by the Appellant
assailing the Judgment dated 18.11.2025 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17293/2024 (“ Writ Petition ”).
2. The Writ Petition was instituted by Respondent No. 5 seeking the
following reliefs:
“ (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Look Out
Circular dated LOC 29.07.2020 & 15.01.2020 (which are still not
provided to the Petitioner) issued against the Petitioner.
(b) Declare LOCs issued by the Respondent banks as Null and
unexecutable; or/and
(c) Grant (interim) temporary relief by suspending the LOCs issued
against the Petitioner; or/and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.07.2026
19:24:02
LPA 546/2026 Page 1 of 6

(d) Direct the Respondent no. 1 & 2 not to Restrain the Petitioner to
Travel abroad or anywhere in India; or/and
(e) Grant such other and further relief to the Petitioner as may be
found just and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(f) Award cost o f litigation. ”
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:
3.1. Due to certain alleged financial irregularities and diversion of
funds sanctioned as loans by a consortium of banks to the
borrower company being M/s Santosh Overseas Limited-
Respondent No. 6, an FIR bearing No. RC 219 2020 E0005 was
lodged by the consortium’s lead bank, i.e., IDBI Bank, with
Respondent No. 4-CBI on behalf of the consortium lenders, which
was registered on 26.06.2020.
3.2. The Appellant and Respondent No. 3 claim that Respondent No. 5,
being the personal guarantor in respect of credit facilities extended
to Respondent No. 6, is jointly and severally liable for the
repayment of the outstanding dues.
3.3. Due to apprehension that the guarantors of Respondent No. 6 may
flee to foreign jurisdiction to avoid repayment of the outstanding
dues, the Appellant and Respondent No. 3, vide letters dated
29.07.2020 and 15.01.2020, requested Respondent No. 2 to issue
Look Out Circulars (“ LOCs ”) against the directors and guarantors
of Respondent No. 6, including Respondent No. 5.
3.4. Aggrieved by the LOCs opened against Respondent No. 5, the
Writ Petition was instituted by Respondent No. 5. Vide order dated
17.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.07.2026
19:24:02
LPA 546/2026 Page 2 of 6

Respondent No. 4-CBI was directed to file an affidavit specifically
disclosing:
“ (i) Whether the petitioner has been named in the FIR or
whether any charge-sheet has been submitted by the CBI?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has been called for investigation at
any stage?
(iii) Whether any investigation in the matter is ongoing or
concluded? ”
3.5. Complying with the aforesaid directions issued by this Court,
Respondent No. 4-CBI filed an affidavit dated 15.10.2025, the
relevant portion of which is as under:
“ 4. That in reply to the said directions passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, it is stated as follows:-
(i) It is submitted that present petitioner namely Amit
Sethi was not a FIR named accused in the said CBI case
bearing number RC 219 2020 E0005, though he was one
of the guarantors for the credit facilities availed by the
accused borrower company M/s Santosh Overseas Ltd. It
is further submitted that the chargesheet in the present
case was filed before the Hon’ble District & Sessions
Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, on
24.02.2024. u/s 120-B, r/w 420 IPC and substantive
offence u/s 420 IPC. The copy of chargesheet is annexed
herewith as Annexure-R1.
(ii) It is submitted that the petitioner was not called for
investigation at any stage in RC 219 2020 E0005.
(iii) It is submitted that investigation in the present case
has culminated into filing of chargesheet and no further
investigation is going on in RC 219 2020 E0005. ”
3.6. After considering the contentions advanced by the parties, the
learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.07.2026
19:24:02
LPA 546/2026 Page 3 of 6

LOCs. Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal was filed by the
Appellant.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single
Judge failed to consider that the LOCs were opened strictly in accordance
with sub-para (xv) of paragraph 8(b) of Office Memorandum No.
25016/31/2010-Imm dated 27.10.2010, corresponding to Clause 6(B)(xv) of
the consolidated Office Memorandum of 2021 issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, whereby the Chairmen, Managing Directors and Chief
Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks were empowered to request the
opening of Look Out Circulars.
5. It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that, in
the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge primarily relied upon the
judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Viraj
Chetan Shah v. Union of India , 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195, without
considering that the said decision is under challenge before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 17194-17230/2024.
6. Upon an oral query from the Court as to whether any interim order
had been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court staying the operation of the
decision in Viraj Chetan Shah (supra), learned Counsel for the Appellant
submitted that no such direction had been issued by the Supreme Court in
the interim.
7. The learned Single Judge while placing reliance upon the decision in
Viraj Chetan Shah (supra) quashed the LOCs issued against Respondent
No. 5 by observing that in absence of any criminal case, FIR, or chargesheet,
the LOCs could not have been issued at the request of banks. Further, the
learned Single Judge observed that similar LOCs against other guarantors of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.07.2026
19:24:02
LPA 546/2026 Page 4 of 6

Respondent No. 6 had already been quashed by this Court in connected
matters. The learned Single Judge also relied on prior decisions holding that
vague references to “economic interests of India” or “larger public interest”
cannot justify restricting a person’s movement. However, the LOC was
quashed subject to Respondent No. 5 filing an undertaking to cooperate with
any investigation and provide relevant documents, if required.
8. We do not find any infirmity with the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge for allowing the Writ Petition as this Bench has 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.
9. Considering that no criminal case is pending against Respondent No.
5 as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge based on the confirmation
in the affidavit dated 15.10.2025 filed by Respondent No. 4-CBI and that the
LOCs issued qua the other guarantors Respondent No. 6 have already been
quashed by this Court, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the Writ Petition.
10. Furthermore, in the Impugned Judgment, the quashing of the LOCs
was made subject to Respondent No. 5 furnishing an undertaking by way of
affidavit, affirming that Respondent No. 5 shall continue to cooperate in any
investigation and shall provide all material/documents sought by the
investigating agencies, to the extent such material/documents are within his
power and possession. It is, therefore, evident that adequate safeguards have
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.07.2026
19:24:02
LPA 546/2026 Page 5 of 6

been put in place in the event Respondent No. 5 intends to travel abroad by
issuing the aforesaid direction by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned
Judgment.
11. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any good ground to
interfere with the Impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the present Appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
JULY 22, 2026
St
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.07.2026
19:24:02
LPA 546/2026 Page 6 of 6