Bank Of Baroda vs Surender Kumar Bansal & Ors. & Ors.

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on:09.04.2026

% Judgment delivered on:04.06.2026


+ LPA 242/2026& CM APPLs. 22851-52/2026 & 22854/2026

BANK OF BARODA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Sougat Sinha, Adv. with Ms. R.
Gayathri Manasa, Ms. Sonali Kumar,
Mr. Vishal Majumdar and
Ms.Maitrayee Shrivastva, Advs.
along with Mr. Praveen Upadhyay,
Officer of the Bank.

versus

SURENDER KUMAR BANSAL & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Lalit Mohini Bhat, Mr. Siddharth
Agarwal and Mr. Mohit Garg, Advs.
for R-1 & R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA


J U D G M E N T
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. The appellant – Bank of Baroda has instituted the proceedings of this
intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by learned
LPA 242/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

Single Judge in W.P.(C) 11367/2021 , whereby Look Out Circular [ ‘LOC’ ]
opened against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been set aside with certain
directions. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the LOC has issued
various directions. The operative portion of the impugned order is contained
in paragraph 8, which is extracted herein below:

“8. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the LOC opened
against the petitioners deserves to be set aside with the following
directions:-

(i) The petitioners shall file an affidavit before the Trial Court affirming
that they shall fully co-operate with the trial;

(ii) The petitioners shall not travel abroad without the permission of the
Trial Court;

(iii) Liberty is granted to the respondent nos.3 to 5 and 8 to re-open the
LOC, in case they find that the petitioners are violating any of the terms,
conditions or directions by the Investigating Agency.”

2. Before delving into the respective submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, we may note certain facts which are essential for
appropriate adjudication of the controversy involved in the present appeal.
3. Certain financial assistance was extended by a consortium of lender
banks of which the appellant is also a member, to the borrower, namely M/s.
SSK Trading Private Limited, which was incorporated in the year 2001 as a
proprietorship firm and was later converted into a private limited company
in the year 2007. The said company took over a proprietorship concern
owned by respondent no.1, who is one of the Directors of the company. The
respondent nos. 1 and 2 are Directors and personal guarantors of the
borrower company – M/s. SSK Trading Private Limited. As the loan
extended by the consortium of banks was declared Non-Performing Asset
[ ‘NPA’ ], certain proceedings were instituted under the Securitisation and
LPA 242/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 [ ‘SARFAESI Act’ ] and the lead consortium bank filed an
Original Application [ ‘O.A.’ ] before the Debt Recovery Tribunal [ ‘DRT’ ],
Delhi to recovery the amount against the borrower company.
4. On a complaint by the lead consortium bank, the Central Bureau of
Investigation [ ‘CBI’ ] registered an FIR bearing no. RCBD-1/2018/E/2006
on 12.04.2018 against the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Upon investigation of
the said FIR, a charge-sheet has been filed, wherein the respondent nos.1
and 2 are arrayed as accused persons and the trial is pending before the
learned Trial Court.
5. An LOC was issued by the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India on 03.01.2020 against the respondent no.1 and
2, which was renewed on 31.12.2020. The respondent nos.1 and 2 filed
W.P.(C) 11367/2021 challenging the LOC, which has been allowed by the
impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the O.A. filed by the
lead member of the consortium has been allowed directing thereby that
borrower company and the Directors shall pay to the appellant – bank an
amount of Rs.31,84,76,127/- (Rupees Thirty One Crore Eighty Four Lakh
Seventy Six Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Seven only) along with
cost, pendente lite an interest @ 14.5% per annum. It is in these background
facts that the instant letters patent appeal has been filed.

7. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant – bank that the impugned
order is erroneous for the reason that the conditions imposed therein are to
LPA 242/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

be complied by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before learned Trial Court where
criminal trial is pending and the appellant – bank has no locus to participate
in such proceedings of the criminal trial.
8. Reference has been made on behalf of the appellant to an order passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was passed in an SLP filed against the
judgment dated 23.04.2024 of Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 719/2020 ,
Viraj Chetan Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , wherein the Supreme
Court has observed that, “ pending consideration of these Special Leave
Petitions on the interim stay, the private respondents/writ petitioners before
the High Court shall seek permission from the High Court in the event they
wish to travel abroad ”.
9. We may note at this juncture itself that vide judgment dated
23.04.2024, Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah (supra) has quashed
certain clauses of the different Office Memorandums which regulate
issuance of LOC to the extent it permitted Chairman, Managing Directors
and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks to make request for
issuance of LOC. By the said judgment all such LOCs which were issued at
the instance of public sector banks have also been quashed.
10. The appellant has argued that owing to the liability of payment under
the orders of the DRT, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to
leave the country and therefore, though learned Single Judge has directed
the respondent nos. 1 and 2 making certain affirmation before the Trial
Court and has also provided therein that they shall not travel abroad without
permission of the Trial Court, such conditions do not secure the interest of
the appellant – bank so far as the recovery of the amount due against the
LPA 242/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

respondent nos. 1 and 2 is concerned. In this view, the submission is that the
impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
11. Opposing the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
has argued that it is not a case where respondent nos.1 and 2 are said to have
not cooperated with the investigation or have attempted to leave the country
and as a matter of fact that investigation agency namely, the CBI and
Enforcement Directorate [ ‘E.D.’ ] have deleted their LOCs earlier issued
against the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

12. It has further been argued that the respondent no.1 was enlarged on
bail by the learned Special Court, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi
in CT. No. 1/2023 , wherein the Court while granting bail put the respondent
no. 1 to stringent conditions such as that he shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the Court and that he shall surrender his passport
and further that he shall cooperate and participate in the investigation and
that he shall not temper with the evidence and not influence the witnesses.
13. It has been submitted by learned counsel representing the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 that their passports are lying deposited with the E.D. and further
that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge itself imposes
stringent conditions which shall ensure securing interest of the appellant –
bank. It is also the case setup on behalf of the respondents that on earlier
occasions whenever any travel was undertaken, requisite permission was
obtained from the Court and there has not been any default on the part of the
respondent nos.1 and 2. In this view, the submission is that since the
impugned order itself imposes stringent conditions in case any travel abroad
LPA 242/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

is undertaken by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the instant appeal is liable to
be dismissed at its threshold.
14. On a careful consideration of the submissions by the learned counsel
for the respective parties and perusal of the record available before us, we do
not find any good ground in the appeal.
15. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has taken note of
certain facts and developments which took place after filing of the petition
in the year 2021.The learned Single Judge has noticed the foreign travels
undertaken by the respondents on four occasions to (i) U.K, (ii) Scotland
and U.K., (iii) U.A.E., and (iv) U.K., under the orders passed by the Court
granting liberty to travel abroad which were passed on08.10.2021,
13.02.2022, 10.01.2024 and 19.05.2025.The learned Single Judge has also
noticed that there has not been a single instance of the respondent nos. 1 and
2 misusing the liberty granted to them by the Court. The impugned order
further notes that during pendency of the petition, investigation has been
completed and a charge-sheet has also been filed where the trial is pending.
16. In the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge has also observed that
today if the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have to travel abroad, they will have to
obtain the requisite permission from the Court which is seized of the
matter/proceedings against them. The Court has also recorded the
undertaking given by respondent nos. 1 and 2 that they shall not travel
abroad unless the Court concerned specifically grants them such a
permission.
LPA 242/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

17. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 19.01.2026 in
Anant Raj Kanoria v. Union of India & Ors , W.P.(C) No. 3313/2023 , the
learned Single Judge has observed that in the said case justifiability of
continued of LOCs has been considered and it has been found that continued
restraint imposed upon an individual by way of an LOC operates as an
uncalled for restriction on personal liberty and right to travel. By making
these observations, learned Single Judge has also expressed his opinion that
purpose of opening of LOC has fully been served and further that
respondent nos. 1 and 2 have sufficient moveable and immovable properties
in India and also that some of the properties have also been attached by the
investigating agency. The learned Single Judge thereafter has quashed the
LOC with certain directions, which require the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to
file affidavit before the Trial Court affirming that they shall fully cooperate
in the trial and respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall not travel abroad without the
permission of the Trial Court. Liberty has also been granted by learned
Single Judge in the impugned order to the CBI, Punjab National Bank
[ ‘PNB’ ] and the appellant – bank as well, to reopen the LOC in case they
find that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are violating any of the terms, conditions
or directions as directed by the Trial Court or the investigating agency.
18. So far as the concern of the appellant – bank that the impugned order
passed by learned Single Judge does not safeguard the interest of the
appellant – bank is concerned, we may note that under the directions passed
by learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi in CT.
No. 1/2023 the passports of respondent nos. 1 and 2 are lying with the E.D.
LPA 242/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

19. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the opinion that adequate safeguards are available, which has been
strengthen by the directions issued by learned Single Judge while passing
the impugned order, in case respondent nos. 1 and 2 intend to travel abroad.
20. It is needless to observe that power to issue an LOC is an exceptional
coercive measure, which has a direct bearing on an individual’s fundamental
right to travel and, therefore, such power has to be exercised with great care
and caution and only in exceptional circumstances. In fact, as held by this
Court in Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
4153, LOC is a major impediment for a person who wants to travel abroad
and that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad other than in
very compelling reasons. Rajesh Kumar Mehta (supra) refers to Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248, wherein it has been held that
no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law
prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and deprivation is effected
strictly in accordance with such procedure.
21. Having regard to the facts of the case and antecedents of respondent
nos. 1 and 2 that there has not been even a single instance of misuse of the
liberty granted to them to travel abroad by the Court, we are of the opinion
that there is no good ground which can be said to be made out in this appeal
so as to call for any interference by us in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
22. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed accordingly
along with pending applications.
LPA 242/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23

23. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)
CHIEF JUSTICE


(TEJAS KARIA)
JUDGE
JUNE 04, 2026
“shailndra”

LPA 242/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:04.06.2026
12:05:23