Bank Of Baroda vs Neena Mittal & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 28.07.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010312042026
+ LPA 536/2026, CM APPL. 45347/2026 & CM APPL. 45350/2026
BANK OF BARODA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sougat Sinha, Ms. R. Gayathri
Manasa, Mr. Navneet Kumar, Mr.
Vishal Majumdar and Ms. Maitrayee
Shrivastva, Advocates.
versus
NEENA MITTAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Talib Khan, Advocate for R1.
Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Senior Panel
Counsel for R3/UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL )
CM APPL. 45348/2026(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 45349/2026(Delay)
3. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 69 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 536/2026 Page 1 of 5

the present Appeal, the same is allowed. The delay of 69 days in filing the
Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.
LPA 536/2026
6. The present intra court Appeal has been filed by the Appellant
assailing the order dated 25.02.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed by the
learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 11611/2024 (“ Writ
Petition ”).
7. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal are as under:
a. The Appellant Bank claims that M/s Santosh Overseas Limited-
Respondent No. 6 had availed various credit facilities from a
consortium of lenders led by IDBI Bank Limited, and Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 acted as personal guarantors for the said credit
facilities of Respondent No. 6.
b. Due to certain alleged financial irregularities, the Appellant Bank
declared the account of M/s Santosh Overseas Limited-
Respondent No. 6 as ‘fraud’ on 11.11.2019. Subsequently, IDBI
Bank Limited filed an FIR being RC No. 219 2020 E0005
(“ FIR ”), with the CBI on behalf of all the lenders on 14.01.2020
and accordingly, CBI Complaint No. CBI/44/2024 (RC No.
219/2020) is pending adjudication before the learned ACJM-02-
cum-ACJ, Rouse Avenue Courts.
c. Due to apprehension that the guarantors of Respondent No. 6 may
flee to foreign jurisdiction to avoid repayment of the outstanding
dues, the Appellant vide letter dated 29.07.2020 requested
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 536/2026 Page 2 of 5

Respondent No. 2 to issue a Look Out Circular (“ LOC ”) against
the directors and guarantors of Respondent No. 6 Company,
including Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
d. 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 disposed of by way
of the Impugned Order. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the
present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single
in the Impugned Order 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.
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. Therefore, it
was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the
learned Single Judge incorrectly held in the Impugned Order 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.
10. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the material
placed on record. The Affidavit dated 21.06.2026 filed by the CBI states that
Respondent No. 1 is not an accused in the FIR, however, Respondent No. 2
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 536/2026 Page 3 of 5

has been named as an accused therein and has been charge-sheeted in the
said case.
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
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. Therefore, 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 Order 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 is liable to be quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
18:16:09
LPA 536/2026 Page 4 of 5

14. In view thereof, we find no infirmity with the Impugned Order passed
by the learned Single Judge. 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 536/2026 Page 5 of 5